Ignoring most of your rant, I will take issue with the claim that this will never have any benefit to mankind.
The very design of the ship is fairly novel. This isn't an updated V2 rocket. All the things they've come up with, the solid rubber fuel engine, the hinging tail, the launch from a conventional plane, is unique, and further development of them is worthwhile. They may prove to be more efficient, cheaper, or more reliable than the conventional alternatives. Or maybe their benefits will be smaller, but it'll be a mature technology, that everyone knows about, and will be an option in the back of NASA engineer's minds when they're developing the methane plane designed to enter Titan's atmosphere... Or even if it is a technological dead-end, we'll learn that, and why, sending future developments down another path, instead of someone else (NASA?) expecting it to work, and wasting their money.
Or back to more conventional uses... There's been talk of large commercial passenger space-planes for decades, which hasn't gone anywhere. This is the closest thing I've seen in the works that is developing towards that goal. It's also the only thing I've seen which could claim to be the successor of the Concorde. You can dismiss the Concorde as a toy for the ultra-wealthy, too, if you like, but it was mostly a profitable aircraft which filled a legitimate need.
With all these possibilities, I refuse to believe science, and the public, won't benefit in some way from this development. Maybe it'll be tiny advancements in knowledge, or maybe they'll luck out and it'll be a game-changing vehicle, that will be used extensively for commercial passenger flight for the next 50 years, like the first passenger jets before it.
In any case, as long as it's being developed with private money, and not taking away from "save the manatees" or whatnot, it's difficult to complain about, since you and I aren't being negatively affected by it. Why don't you reserve your venom for ACTUAL multi-million dollar yachts? You're sure to get someone to chime-in on how even they are actually *good* for the economy, too.
It's easy to say a bunch of non-sense when you don't actually understand the domain and the finer detailers.
I've worked for one of the biggest industry names, with the top products in maps/navigation, for several years... I've clearly been far deeper down in the implementation details than you have. Multiple search systems, POI providers, maps providers, geocoding and reverse geocoding systems, working out continually rotating bugs with each release of the map data, layers not lining up, and far, far, more. Hell, those "GIS frameworks" you used are likely to have included one I put together.
The problem isn't as simple as "it's apple's fault." It's actually a combination of missing/bad data and poorly implemented search.
The "search" part is directly Apple's fault. The "data" part is at least partially Apple's fault, and more to the point, seems to have nothing to do with TeleAtlas, as sources say they're getting their POI from Yelp.
Most mapping systems don't use the POI info from NAVTEQ/TeleAtlas, as it's quite incomplete. At the very least, it needs to be aggregated with another separate source of (BETTER!) POI data. If Apple was depending on TeleAtlas (or NAVTEQ) POI, they'd be idiots for doing it. And again, indications are that they are using Yelp, anyhow.
It just sounds to me like you're excusing their incompetence because you're at about that same level, yourself.
You go to the cable company, grab an overpriced cable modem, screw it into the jack on the wall in your house, and call for provisioning. No service personnel required.
That's only even POSSIBLE on the most up-to-date cable infrastructure. I've seen it, but that's the rare exception, NOT the rule. Damn near all cable co's MUST, at a bare minimum, drive out to the POP to swap FILTERS on the coax line.
Seriously, dude, move out of your parent's basement, already, and see how things work out in the real world.
But I'm done arguing. It's clear you know jack shit about what you speak, and keep backpedaling constantly. Goodbye.
But I think I know bicycles [...] when I see them.
No, you don't. And I explained why, in detail. I've seen bicycles with gasoline engines added-on, and motorcycles with peddles. Early motorcycles bore heavy resemblance to bicycles, and I seriously doubt you'd be able to spot the difference.
You're more than welcome to dismiss my lengthy, well-reasoned, and far forward-looking argument, on a trivial point of contention if you like. It makes no difference to me. I merely thought someone might like to know what the future of transit is going to look like, and why cars certainly won't be replaced by buses & rail.
Hard to say which is REALLY the bigger problem. But going by the CNET article, though they mentioned one map inaccuracy, mostly they complained about POI being horrid, which they say Apple is getting from Yelp.
For the map inaccuracies I've seen, I would assume Apple's server-side software is to blame. Things like nothing but a single highway on Grand Cayman Island just reeks of the server generating the maps from some high-level global map, and not properly including the region-specific map data. Other big empty sections could similarly be attributed to Apple's server-side failing to include a specific map file for that region.
I have no desire to defend TeleAtlas/TomTom, but I speak from experience when I say I found their maps to be nearly as good as NAVTEQ. And the integration issues Apple is having, like the altitude data not aligning with the aerial photos in the 3D flyover, again indicates some server-side issue, where the two layers of data are not being aligned properly. Perhaps most damming, TomTom makes navigation devices, which uses this same map data, and I haven't heard such shreiks about inaccuracy with those devices.
If you've run into lots of navigation issues, then I concede it's *probably* due to inaccuracies in the TeleAtlas map data. But Google and NAVTEQ are both far from error-free, directing you to enter an address from the back, a block over, where there's no entrance... directing you to drive in a big circle around a block because it's unaware of an intersection or stop-light... and many more such issues. My solution is simply to keep TWO different apps installed on my phone, to get a second opinion when one seems to be taking me off-track.
TeleAtlas isn't to blame for most of the iPhone Maps app problems I've heard about. You can blame the map provider if a road is missing or mislabled, or an address is down the street, but that's about it.
The failed searches and missing home/business locations are a matter of Apple's POI search system being horrible (something Google does well), which switching to NAVTEQ or any other map provider won't fix for them.
Why the slashvertisment for NAVTEQ? They're not the only option out there. TeleAtlas (TomTom) is similarly licensing their map data, and is used by maps and navigation apps, particularly by or for companies who are direct competitors with Nokia.
You cannot pick a point at which a motorized bicycle becomes a motorcycle, or a stripped-down motorcycle becomes a bicycle. It's entirely arbitrary.
Bicycles are most often human-powered (though there are electric ones), where motorcycles are commonly gasoline powered. However, gasoline power is actually cheaper and more efficient than human power, in every sense.
Change the comparison to cars versus 4-wheeled bikes, and you have the same dilemma.
it's possible that I will never know who shot the laser across a darkened room, but the user of a pepperspray canister is much closer and more visible.
YOU might not see the attacker before being blinded, but anyone else in the darkened room most certainly will have. And shining a laser into a crowd, or the air intake of a building, doesn't have the same effect as pepper spray.
I can't help think that this phrase was something repeated by ADSL providers. With cable, the last-mile connection is a bus, whereas it's a point-to-point link with ADSL, but in terms of consumer experience this has absolutely no impact.
That's quite true, and DSL providers got successfully sued for their misleading TV commercials about the subject (circa 2002 IIRC).
But to be fair, you do miss one point... DSL appeared on the scene BEFORE DOCSIS, so many of the people who had cable modems before 2002 or so, had no other speed limit than contention with other users. So there was SOME little bit of truth in the ads.
And indeed, while DSL providers were advertising about contention on Cable Modems, they were hooking up DOZENS of DSLAMs to a single T-1 line.
Hell, I have huge dropoff in WiFi signal going to different rooms of my own house.
The fact that you are incompetent with WiFi is irrelevant, and assuming your experience to be an accurate reflection of the best the technology can do, is pure nonsense.
The fact remains that innumerable hotels, apartment complexes, office buildings, campgrounds, and more, have all been very effectively served by WiFi, without any of the problems you suggest are inherent difficulties.
In an urban environment the last mile infrastructure is already there
Yes, for the most part... but it requires ample maintenance just to keep it there. Verizon isn't deploying FTTH because it's faster, they're doing it because of lower maintenance costs.
And installation fees exist because an installer actually has to come to your home, and ensure that you've got, eg. coax wired to your house, and with a proper S/N ratio. Plenty of people have DSL / Cable co personnel coming to their homes repeatedly, to fix issues with the lines. You can suggest whatever you want, but it's well known to be one of the most costly portions of providing service to the general public.
Why is it okay for the very wealthy to build yachts in space while poor people starve and wonder if they'll be able to afford the medication they need to stay alive?
Stopping the building of this "space yacht" wouldn't cause that money to go to better uses, and spending this money here doesn't mean any other programs are going to be cut or slowed because of it. And you can ALWAYS find slightly better uses for your money... Why are we buying candy, when there are people in the world that are starving? Why are you spending time on the internet, when there are people in the world that are starving?
Your argument is a rather simple, old logical fallacy. That's why you got modded as a troll.
There needs to be *at a minimum* public education on this issue, and if nobody is willing to do that, then handheld lasers need to be outright banned for unlicensed individuals. This opinion is unpopular for slashdot, but shit really has gotten out of hand.
So you believe it would have been better if the person had pepper sprayed you, instead?
Better warning labels would be a good idea, but far more dangerous things are unrestricted. Just because lasers are "new" doesn't make them fundamentally different from any other weapon.
That's an interesting, but very China-specific problem... They happen to have piss-poor emissions controls on their coal power plants, and their automobile engines happen to be better... and this, even though their automobile engines are far less efficient and more polluting than what we have in the western world (for various reasons).
It's always seemed to me that private cars are a fundamentally inefficient way of moving people around, and will always have a huge cost, no matter how we power them.
They are currently inefficient, but NOT fundamentally so. I recommend comparing cars to bicycles.
Bicycles are the darlings of environmentalists, and they'd have us ban cars if they could. Yet there's fundamentally nothing different about bicycles and cars (or motorcycles if you prefer). Cars are able to go faster, and are built heavier, but there is no public outcry for lowering speed limits, or making cars lighter, at least none comparable to the call for riding bicycles.
As cars get smaller and lighter, and their power train gets more efficient and also lighter, things can get VERY interesting. And if you compare the cost/efficiency of generating 1/4 horsepower with a battery and motor, versus the caloric intake of a human, cars have the potential to become a *more efficient* option than bicycling. For decades now, there have been some radical vehicle designs that are more bicycle than car (see: "velomobiles" / "bicycle cars"), yet are electric powered, 3 or 4-wheeled, and enclosed. See the old "Sinclair C5" or the "TWIKE" for a couple examples.
In some ways, individual transit is inherently more efficient than mass transit. Traveling point-to-point, from where you are, DIRECTLY to where you're going, doesn't just save you time, but energy, too. What's more, many economists have discussed the fact that the free-form transportation system we have, has been an economic boon for the US since WWII. It has benefits like allowing us to transport large quantities of goods efficiently (supermarkets and home centers would be out of business if only a few people had cars). And the free movement of workers from dispersed and rapidly shifting population centers to similarly dispersed and sprawling job centers, is something cars are uniquely suited for, and effective at.
But I say all this as someone who also has a clear view of the worst sides of automobiles... Congestion is absolutely extreme around the greater Los Angeles area. Geographic roadblocks funnel millions of people into extremely tiny corridors, packed with cars. Shared schedules combined with dense populations result in "rush hour" being a nightmarish multi-hour crucible every day. Friday afternoon again turns the roads into parking lots. And this congestion can more than quadruple trip times. Perhaps worse of all is the greatly increased danger of driving through a densely packed sea of cars, meaning driving ceases to be relaxing, and instead turns into a white-knuckle battle for survival. But with all of this, I still don't think mass transit would be an answer.. it has plenty of it's own shortcomings (scheduling, last-mile transit, cargo limits, price, opportunity cost, etc.). We just overlook them, and focus on the problems we see in our day-to-day experience, and hope the grass will be greener on the other side.
I agree that train travel is much more comfortable. But when an 18+ hour high-speed train trip takes 3 hours by flying, people will put up with the much briefer inconvenience. And with such a difference in speed, you can include the time taken going through security, and taking a bus to/from the airport to/from the center of town after the fact, and still be better off both in terms of travel time, and cost.
And if comfort is paramount, flying business class or first class is an option, and will give you the nice big seats found on trains.
Hell, I'd love to see it happen, as I hate to fly for numerous reasons, but the benefits don't ever seem to materialize in the real world... Train travel may be more efficient, yet the ticket price says otherwise. Even if tickets were cheap, trains seem inherently limited on scheduling compared to airlines. And even with the fastest train technology, planes are always faster.
You're an idiot... You're talking about the PRIVATE insurance market, yet most people in the US get their health insurance through their employer (or through medicare), where EVERYONE pays the same rate, and no-one can be denied coverage.
I think this is unconsionable, making it illegal to employ certain people, because of their perfectly legal off-the-job activities, and I've never smoked a day in my life. If people want to make smoking illegal, then they damn well should do so, and NOT take a backdoor approach to it, which reeks of discrimination (if certain ethnic groups are more likely to smoke, prepare for a lawsuit to strike this practice down, hard).
It's ridiculous to claim rising fuel prices are due to the THREAT of modest inflation. Back then, when the Euro was stronger than the USD, and a recession was looming, there was a real issue. Today, the Euro has lost it's halo, so the dollar is back to the world's preferred currency. And what you know about economics could fit on a postage stamp.
As gets said on EVERY story about EVs, grid electricity is ALWAYS environmentally friendlier than gas-powered cars. Even if power was generated 100% by coal, the big power plants are at least twice as efficient at converting it into energy as an ICE. With the modest losses from there to the wheel that EVs have, it always works out better for the environment... And most places, the mix is much better, with hydroelectric making up a big percentage, as well as natural gas plants being popular in several states, most of all California, nuclear being well-represented, and wind, solar and geothermal making up an increasing segment.
And that's all besides the point, because we were talking about it being CHEAPER, which it is.
It wouldn't happen with most other companies, because none of them have one single figurehead who both runs the company, does all the big public presentations, and has a big enough ego to take credit for all innovative ideas while keeping a straight face.
But Jobs isn't entirely in a class by himself... We'll have to see how things go decades down the road, but I could certainly see geek-cult worship someone like Elon Musk if his luck continues. Probably others out there, which don't immediately come to mind.
And through the past, there's been ample hero worship from automotive industry legends, to a number of sports stars. You can even look at politics where Ronald Regan is worshiped by the right-wing, for no particular reason.
In an urban environment these issues would be compounded.
No they wouldn't, because no ISP in an urban location would ever tell their users they need to connect to a tower 10Miles away. You notice I said "last mile" and not "last 20 miles". We're talking WiFi at the end of every block, or so, instead of dragging lines to every house, and having a $100 installer fees.
The cell co's have tons of licensed, dedicated bandwidth, yet and they can't even match the speeds of WiFi access point scattered all across the country. Sounds like cell co's are being EXTREMELY inefficient when it comes to spectrum reuse.
A mile is pushing it, but a $50 AP running DD-WRT can be configured as a wireless repeater. I've used high-power Buffalo units to do exactly that.
Microwaves only pose problems with a weak signal and ground-level receivers... Put the antenna on your roof, and you'll be able to use your microwave all you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring most of your rant, I will take issue with the claim that this will never have any benefit to mankind.
The very design of the ship is fairly novel. This isn't an updated V2 rocket. All the things they've come up with, the solid rubber fuel engine, the hinging tail, the launch from a conventional plane, is unique, and further development of them is worthwhile. They may prove to be more efficient, cheaper, or more reliable than the conventional alternatives. Or maybe their benefits will be smaller, but it'll be a mature technology, that everyone knows about, and will be an option in the back of NASA engineer's minds when they're developing the methane plane designed to enter Titan's atmosphere... Or even if it is a technological dead-end, we'll learn that, and why, sending future developments down another path, instead of someone else (NASA?) expecting it to work, and wasting their money.
Or back to more conventional uses... There's been talk of large commercial passenger space-planes for decades, which hasn't gone anywhere. This is the closest thing I've seen in the works that is developing towards that goal. It's also the only thing I've seen which could claim to be the successor of the Concorde. You can dismiss the Concorde as a toy for the ultra-wealthy, too, if you like, but it was mostly a profitable aircraft which filled a legitimate need.
With all these possibilities, I refuse to believe science, and the public, won't benefit in some way from this development. Maybe it'll be tiny advancements in knowledge, or maybe they'll luck out and it'll be a game-changing vehicle, that will be used extensively for commercial passenger flight for the next 50 years, like the first passenger jets before it.
In any case, as long as it's being developed with private money, and not taking away from "save the manatees" or whatnot, it's difficult to complain about, since you and I aren't being negatively affected by it. Why don't you reserve your venom for ACTUAL multi-million dollar yachts? You're sure to get someone to chime-in on how even they are actually *good* for the economy, too.
I've worked for one of the biggest industry names, with the top products in maps/navigation, for several years... I've clearly been far deeper down in the implementation details than you have. Multiple search systems, POI providers, maps providers, geocoding and reverse geocoding systems, working out continually rotating bugs with each release of the map data, layers not lining up, and far, far, more. Hell, those "GIS frameworks" you used are likely to have included one I put together.
The "search" part is directly Apple's fault. The "data" part is at least partially Apple's fault, and more to the point, seems to have nothing to do with TeleAtlas, as sources say they're getting their POI from Yelp.
Most mapping systems don't use the POI info from NAVTEQ/TeleAtlas, as it's quite incomplete. At the very least, it needs to be aggregated with another separate source of (BETTER!) POI data. If Apple was depending on TeleAtlas (or NAVTEQ) POI, they'd be idiots for doing it. And again, indications are that they are using Yelp, anyhow.
It just sounds to me like you're excusing their incompetence because you're at about that same level, yourself.
That's only even POSSIBLE on the most up-to-date cable infrastructure. I've seen it, but that's the rare exception, NOT the rule. Damn near all cable co's MUST, at a bare minimum, drive out to the POP to swap FILTERS on the coax line.
Seriously, dude, move out of your parent's basement, already, and see how things work out in the real world.
But I'm done arguing. It's clear you know jack shit about what you speak, and keep backpedaling constantly. Goodbye.
No, you don't. And I explained why, in detail. I've seen bicycles with gasoline engines added-on, and motorcycles with peddles. Early motorcycles bore heavy resemblance to bicycles, and I seriously doubt you'd be able to spot the difference.
You're more than welcome to dismiss my lengthy, well-reasoned, and far forward-looking argument, on a trivial point of contention if you like. It makes no difference to me. I merely thought someone might like to know what the future of transit is going to look like, and why cars certainly won't be replaced by buses & rail.
Hard to say which is REALLY the bigger problem. But going by the CNET article, though they mentioned one map inaccuracy, mostly they complained about POI being horrid, which they say Apple is getting from Yelp.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57517404-37/apple-maps-in-ios-6-what-you-need-to-know-faq/
For the map inaccuracies I've seen, I would assume Apple's server-side software is to blame. Things like nothing but a single highway on Grand Cayman Island just reeks of the server generating the maps from some high-level global map, and not properly including the region-specific map data. Other big empty sections could similarly be attributed to Apple's server-side failing to include a specific map file for that region.
I have no desire to defend TeleAtlas/TomTom, but I speak from experience when I say I found their maps to be nearly as good as NAVTEQ. And the integration issues Apple is having, like the altitude data not aligning with the aerial photos in the 3D flyover, again indicates some server-side issue, where the two layers of data are not being aligned properly. Perhaps most damming, TomTom makes navigation devices, which uses this same map data, and I haven't heard such shreiks about inaccuracy with those devices.
If you've run into lots of navigation issues, then I concede it's *probably* due to inaccuracies in the TeleAtlas map data. But Google and NAVTEQ are both far from error-free, directing you to enter an address from the back, a block over, where there's no entrance... directing you to drive in a big circle around a block because it's unaware of an intersection or stop-light... and many more such issues. My solution is simply to keep TWO different apps installed on my phone, to get a second opinion when one seems to be taking me off-track.
TeleAtlas isn't to blame for most of the iPhone Maps app problems I've heard about. You can blame the map provider if a road is missing or mislabled, or an address is down the street, but that's about it.
The failed searches and missing home/business locations are a matter of Apple's POI search system being horrible (something Google does well), which switching to NAVTEQ or any other map provider won't fix for them.
Why the slashvertisment for NAVTEQ? They're not the only option out there. TeleAtlas (TomTom) is similarly licensing their map data, and is used by maps and navigation apps, particularly by or for companies who are direct competitors with Nokia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tele_Atlas
http://www.gpsreview.net/navteq-vs-tele-atlas/
For the record, I have never worked for either company.
You cannot pick a point at which a motorized bicycle becomes a motorcycle, or a stripped-down motorcycle becomes a bicycle. It's entirely arbitrary.
Bicycles are most often human-powered (though there are electric ones), where motorcycles are commonly gasoline powered. However, gasoline power is actually cheaper and more efficient than human power, in every sense.
Change the comparison to cars versus 4-wheeled bikes, and you have the same dilemma.
YOU might not see the attacker before being blinded, but anyone else in the darkened room most certainly will have. And shining a laser into a crowd, or the air intake of a building, doesn't have the same effect as pepper spray.
Not in most states in the US.
Meanwhile, lasers really /are/ regulated:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1040.10
Thus making you, once again, the idiot.
That's quite true, and DSL providers got successfully sued for their misleading TV commercials about the subject (circa 2002 IIRC).
But to be fair, you do miss one point... DSL appeared on the scene BEFORE DOCSIS, so many of the people who had cable modems before 2002 or so, had no other speed limit than contention with other users. So there was SOME little bit of truth in the ads.
And indeed, while DSL providers were advertising about contention on Cable Modems, they were hooking up DOZENS of DSLAMs to a single T-1 line.
The fact that you are incompetent with WiFi is irrelevant, and assuming your experience to be an accurate reflection of the best the technology can do, is pure nonsense.
The fact remains that innumerable hotels, apartment complexes, office buildings, campgrounds, and more, have all been very effectively served by WiFi, without any of the problems you suggest are inherent difficulties.
Yes, for the most part... but it requires ample maintenance just to keep it there. Verizon isn't deploying FTTH because it's faster, they're doing it because of lower maintenance costs.
And installation fees exist because an installer actually has to come to your home, and ensure that you've got, eg. coax wired to your house, and with a proper S/N ratio. Plenty of people have DSL / Cable co personnel coming to their homes repeatedly, to fix issues with the lines. You can suggest whatever you want, but it's well known to be one of the most costly portions of providing service to the general public.
There's no straw man here. Countries with stricter gun laws have more stabbings... Eliminating a common weapon doesn't eliminate crime. Deal with it.
Stopping the building of this "space yacht" wouldn't cause that money to go to better uses, and spending this money here doesn't mean any other programs are going to be cut or slowed because of it. And you can ALWAYS find slightly better uses for your money... Why are we buying candy, when there are people in the world that are starving? Why are you spending time on the internet, when there are people in the world that are starving?
Your argument is a rather simple, old logical fallacy. That's why you got modded as a troll.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20misericordiam
So you believe it would have been better if the person had pepper sprayed you, instead?
Better warning labels would be a good idea, but far more dangerous things are unrestricted. Just because lasers are "new" doesn't make them fundamentally different from any other weapon.
That's an interesting, but very China-specific problem... They happen to have piss-poor emissions controls on their coal power plants, and their automobile engines happen to be better... and this, even though their automobile engines are far less efficient and more polluting than what we have in the western world (for various reasons).
They are currently inefficient, but NOT fundamentally so. I recommend comparing cars to bicycles.
Bicycles are the darlings of environmentalists, and they'd have us ban cars if they could. Yet there's fundamentally nothing different about bicycles and cars (or motorcycles if you prefer). Cars are able to go faster, and are built heavier, but there is no public outcry for lowering speed limits, or making cars lighter, at least none comparable to the call for riding bicycles.
As cars get smaller and lighter, and their power train gets more efficient and also lighter, things can get VERY interesting. And if you compare the cost/efficiency of generating 1/4 horsepower with a battery and motor, versus the caloric intake of a human, cars have the potential to become a *more efficient* option than bicycling. For decades now, there have been some radical vehicle designs that are more bicycle than car (see: "velomobiles" / "bicycle cars"), yet are electric powered, 3 or 4-wheeled, and enclosed. See the old "Sinclair C5" or the "TWIKE" for a couple examples.
In some ways, individual transit is inherently more efficient than mass transit. Traveling point-to-point, from where you are, DIRECTLY to where you're going, doesn't just save you time, but energy, too. What's more, many economists have discussed the fact that the free-form transportation system we have, has been an economic boon for the US since WWII. It has benefits like allowing us to transport large quantities of goods efficiently (supermarkets and home centers would be out of business if only a few people had cars). And the free movement of workers from dispersed and rapidly shifting population centers to similarly dispersed and sprawling job centers, is something cars are uniquely suited for, and effective at.
But I say all this as someone who also has a clear view of the worst sides of automobiles... Congestion is absolutely extreme around the greater Los Angeles area. Geographic roadblocks funnel millions of people into extremely tiny corridors, packed with cars. Shared schedules combined with dense populations result in "rush hour" being a nightmarish multi-hour crucible every day. Friday afternoon again turns the roads into parking lots. And this congestion can more than quadruple trip times. Perhaps worse of all is the greatly increased danger of driving through a densely packed sea of cars, meaning driving ceases to be relaxing, and instead turns into a white-knuckle battle for survival. But with all of this, I still don't think mass transit would be an answer.. it has plenty of it's own shortcomings (scheduling, last-mile transit, cargo limits, price, opportunity cost, etc.). We just overlook them, and focus on the problems we see in our day-to-day experience, and hope the grass will be greener on the other side.
I agree that train travel is much more comfortable. But when an 18+ hour high-speed train trip takes 3 hours by flying, people will put up with the much briefer inconvenience. And with such a difference in speed, you can include the time taken going through security, and taking a bus to/from the airport to/from the center of town after the fact, and still be better off both in terms of travel time, and cost.
And if comfort is paramount, flying business class or first class is an option, and will give you the nice big seats found on trains.
Hell, I'd love to see it happen, as I hate to fly for numerous reasons, but the benefits don't ever seem to materialize in the real world... Train travel may be more efficient, yet the ticket price says otherwise. Even if tickets were cheap, trains seem inherently limited on scheduling compared to airlines. And even with the fastest train technology, planes are always faster.
You're an idiot... You're talking about the PRIVATE insurance market, yet most people in the US get their health insurance through their employer (or through medicare), where EVERYONE pays the same rate, and no-one can be denied coverage.
I think this is unconsionable, making it illegal to employ certain people, because of their perfectly legal off-the-job activities, and I've never smoked a day in my life. If people want to make smoking illegal, then they damn well should do so, and NOT take a backdoor approach to it, which reeks of discrimination (if certain ethnic groups are more likely to smoke, prepare for a lawsuit to strike this practice down, hard).
It's ridiculous to claim rising fuel prices are due to the THREAT of modest inflation. Back then, when the Euro was stronger than the USD, and a recession was looming, there was a real issue. Today, the Euro has lost it's halo, so the dollar is back to the world's preferred currency. And what you know about economics could fit on a postage stamp.
As gets said on EVERY story about EVs, grid electricity is ALWAYS environmentally friendlier than gas-powered cars. Even if power was generated 100% by coal, the big power plants are at least twice as efficient at converting it into energy as an ICE. With the modest losses from there to the wheel that EVs have, it always works out better for the environment... And most places, the mix is much better, with hydroelectric making up a big percentage, as well as natural gas plants being popular in several states, most of all California, nuclear being well-represented, and wind, solar and geothermal making up an increasing segment.
And that's all besides the point, because we were talking about it being CHEAPER, which it is.
It wouldn't happen with most other companies, because none of them have one single figurehead who both runs the company, does all the big public presentations, and has a big enough ego to take credit for all innovative ideas while keeping a straight face.
But Jobs isn't entirely in a class by himself... We'll have to see how things go decades down the road, but I could certainly see geek-cult worship someone like Elon Musk if his luck continues. Probably others out there, which don't immediately come to mind.
And through the past, there's been ample hero worship from automotive industry legends, to a number of sports stars. You can even look at politics where Ronald Regan is worshiped by the right-wing, for no particular reason.
No they wouldn't, because no ISP in an urban location would ever tell their users they need to connect to a tower 10Miles away. You notice I said "last mile" and not "last 20 miles". We're talking WiFi at the end of every block, or so, instead of dragging lines to every house, and having a $100 installer fees.
The cell co's have tons of licensed, dedicated bandwidth, yet and they can't even match the speeds of WiFi access point scattered all across the country. Sounds like cell co's are being EXTREMELY inefficient when it comes to spectrum reuse.
Nope, I couldn't... ATM, the ATM isn't on the ATM. No ETA on the ATM getting back on the ATM, ATM.
Now who's complaining?
A mile is pushing it, but a $50 AP running DD-WRT can be configured as a wireless repeater. I've used high-power Buffalo units to do exactly that.
Microwaves only pose problems with a weak signal and ground-level receivers... Put the antenna on your roof, and you'll be able to use your microwave all you want.