The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.
This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.
TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.
Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.
And surely bills from either side encompass strictly a single regulation and would never be used for pork.
It really peeves me when we add laws on top of laws rather than repealing bad ones and drafting new ones to cover changes. Innovation has occurred for thousands of years without copyright or patent protection. Free use wasn't even a phrase until we started to see tyrannical laws that abuse basic rights, inherent to all humans regardless of what their governments say or do.
Whatever movement is made in the law books, nothing will matter. The Internet combines the wishes of billions, disregarding every law. Funny thing is, the Internet really lets the free market shine without trampling on the basic human rights.
The Net won't murder, won't rape, won't rob from your home or incur taxes you don't want to pay. It won't restrict your right to speak freely, it won't take your guns away, it won't harbor troops in your home.
As more people embrace the Net, more will use the rights they were born with. More will commit legal crimes that are morally acceptable.
In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions.
Do bloggers worry about copyright? Do musicians on purevolume worry? Do researchers posting their theses care?
Everything I dream of in my free market world is coming true online, and no law is stopping it. Boucher's bill won't do jack. Repeal copyright and you'll see more innovation than ever.
Why release good music freely? Fans may pay you for more, or a production company might hire you to write something for them, or you might gain customers for your live shows, or you might get people to your site to gain AdSense revenue. Copyright won't protect your income-via-monopoly much longer.
If you make the Top Tiers a government-controlled service, expect long term problems like censorship, taxation and regulations on sub-level tiers.
Neither company involved in this dispute wants to do t is. They need to work it out, or other companies will find a solution and take the customers.
If you're desperate to provide data to multiple top tiers, pay for a host that is connected to multiple backbones.
There is zero need to mandate anything. Let the free market provide and we'll be safer in the long run. Let government provide and we'll see a slowly creeping tyranny online.
I can't believe I'm hearing a call for more regulation, even U.N. control. The lack of rational thought and disregard of unintended consequences amazes me.
The Internet has flourished without much control, run by Both large and small businesses for one reason: profit. Information is free yet its distribution is profitable.
If we give government control (taxation, censorship and worse(, we'll see less freedom.
Why did this jinx happen? Because the top tier providers aren't making a profit. But their calls for support go unheard, so they found a way to make it news.
When businesses that rely on the infrastructure paid for by private industries, they have high expectations. But they're not paying for that infrastructure!
Trust me, no one wants to bifurcate the Internet. Its a ploy to show a problem that needs to be solved. You will Never see it done for control, censorship or monopoly powers. You'll only see it when consumers don't pay for what they use. See California's old electric company that was forced to sell energy at a loss. They went bankrupt.
Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation.
I don't expect any successes with the EU, except for the pocket books of those with clout.
Video is not portable in any successful manner. Cell phone providers can't get people interested; portable mini-LCD DVD players spend more time on family room shelves than in-use.
Music videos? Does MTV even play them anymore? Who watches videos?
My impression is that Apple is trying to make the market viable, yet the iPod's popularity rode on years of MP3 success from Napster-on. Who trades videos over P2P or buys video DVDs from Borders, Wal-Mart or Amazon?
Is it a workaround from the RIAA? Doubtful. Is it attempting to fill up the hole in a dwindling music video market? Unlikely. Is it a feature that will get a huge initial "ooh toy" interest that will never get used after the first few weeks?
I can't see why this is needed unless Apple foresees video Podcasts from independent video "bloggers" or DIY TV show sites, but even that is a stretch.
The iPod coasted on the coattails of a huge market without a user friendly portable player. Video iPod is trying to invent a market boom.
I hate copyright. I believe it is just a coercion by government to provide a "time limited" monopoly.
In this situation, copyright doesn't make sense. Copyright uses coercion to supply an author with zero reason to police the distribution of their work. The laws also use coercion to give the consumer a loophole to an author's "property."
Honestly, without copyright law, we'd have two situations I forsee:
1. Authors develop copy protection schemes to control access.
2. Authors can freely distribute the work ("public domain") and offer value added services to generate more income.
I feel the Internet will drastically affect copyright law, showing how futile more laws will be.
Ahh, signal strength correlation would seem possible.
It seems like a huge amount of work. Why not just pay a few media companies to transmit a time coded ping and base location on that? Trying to keep abreast of tower location changes is a huge waste of manpower, IMO.
The ambiguity of light (wave and/or particle) has always made my head spin. To think that a bulb gives off light in "infinite" (lower limit time angle of tau) blows my mind.
Affiliating light with quantum theory seems like a stretch as quantum theory answers seem deus ex machina to me. I'm sure "wiser" people give this discovery merit, but even the "advanced information" link is ambiguous.
If we can now comb out light frequencies to within 15 digits of accuracy, it seems like we can increase bandwidth over laser optics by many orders of magnitude. The long term gain in communications bandwidth could be huge if the technique is feasible cheaply by industry.
If this technique can somehow be utilized with the radio spectrum instead of light, I wonder if similar increases in data space could be realized. I never contemplated light to radio in the physical sense.
Network protocol pings are. Radio transmissions might not be.
The 'ping' our attempt made was merely an analog "beep" on a given frequency, with 3 differences frequencies. Had we incorporated digital time coding instead of just a beep, we could have triangulated properly. Too bad we had no clue about that.
Sounds interesting. As geeky teens we tried making our own positioning system using 3 transmitters, one receiver and a PC. It never worked well as we didn't know how to properly encode the current time into the 'pings' to calculate the transit time.
Do all these broadcast cells broadcast the time code? Are the clocks in sync or do they need to be? I'm guessing without a way to "time" pings received, there's no easy way to validate your position.
The "need" to find yourself seems sort of a waste for most. GPS is nice but I'm more interested in real time user voting on traffic (on their road, in their direction). GPS + realtime traffic heuristics could offer faster escape routes during evacuations, or better gas mileage by avoiding idle periods.
EBITDA seems to be the current standard but not in my world. I stopped listening to the MBAs of the world a decade ago.
I assess my dividends in t is order:
1. Net Profit 2. Value of stale inventory versus long term debt 3. Net change in overhead versus gross income 4. demand of products sold versus supply of competition 5. Need for infrastructure updates
Corporations I invest in ("own") don't pay tax. They don't make security investments (interest). Depreciating products aren't a large investment, and amortizable items are preferably sold as used products (ie held as inventory rather than amortized).
Businesses I have some control over should return 100% or more annually. Those I help out should net 20% minimum.
If I can't get my money back in 5 years, it isn't worth it. Most of my investments aren't over $10K. Today's market offers a multitude of business options without needing to invest $100K's.
Average return should be 30% between winners and losers. I have one business that I'll lose almost $50K on due to my mistake. Ouch.
It seems to me that they're throwing money at an unnecessary application. Does Yahoo know something that we don't? I'd venture that they're starting with PD books to shake the bugs out of their platform so the app works well in round 2.
Round 2 (current commercial books) won't occur without a massive copyright law change or support of the Author's Guild.
It amazes me constantly how middle class people invest so much in pies in the sky. I invest my money directly in local businesses that have products or services to sell. My 2 VC friends bust their asses lying to investors in order to get a commission.
VC in OSS is an even higher risk than investing in closed software -- where's the revenue?
VC is the ultimate form of gambling. Any decent small business investment should reap 20% dividends. The VC investment groups seem to gamble on getting 1000% back if the product gets bought out by someone bigger.
There was. I think it was called Orange or something fruity. I played with it and it was terrible.
The solution is out there in the ether. Even over WANs it is viable as nodes can search for chunk updates by merely requesting Address/Key instead of Address/Key/Data. Of course topology outage would be murder, but that's true with client-server, too.
I have a customer with 1TB available in the server, 700GB in use. Their 150 workstations have 30TB free. Their server frequently gets bogged down and needs constant hardware improvements. A Virtual File Server (hive) would increase uptime, decrease costs and increase performance.
* Bandwidth designation for each node * AI style workgroup-relations caching -- users embed information into chunks offering other hiveminds a chance to stock up on common data for faster response * Address/Key First sorting for confirming files accessed are the most recent * Data-In-Use flags (flags should be hive updated every so often to entrust that data is still in use) * Momentum Updates (Organized hive updates through friendship pairs or quads keeping data chunks closer to home) * Administration Worldmap (show chunk usage, lifespan, friendship groups, connection uptime)
IMHO, torrent is too anonymous. I'd rather see chunks offered within the friendship pair/quad only. Easier to notify hiveminds of updates or in-use flagging.
Backups are integrated in the hive. I think a backup node in the hive could stream backups constantly.
Authentications/permissions can be realized by using a registry-like Address/Key/Source structure. The address of a chunk in the hive designates what data it is, the key can be 0 for public or an encryption key known to client apps permitted to access the chunk. Source is the data (encrypted or otherwise).
Since the client node is responsible for reassimilating chunks it hived out, the encryption is twofold: cracking the key only gets your a bite. You need to know what other chunks connect to yours to eat a full plate.
The problem to me IS desperate. In all of my businesses my main goal is "how do I make myself obsolete?" It sounds counterintuitive yet it lets my customers see that I don't want to do the same work ad infinitum. I want to return a nice profit to my customers for the money they pay me. $150/hour should save my customers $225/hour in added productivity. Down time is a huge net loss.
Proper data utilization is money made and time saved. Programmers facilitate that. Accessing the data to be utilized is my job. I want it transparent with 100% uptime. Client dies? Pop in a replacement.
iFolder is so-1990's to me, heh. Freenet seems doomed!
The war is on:
A. huge megaservers online serving thin/dumb terminals over high speed network connections (renting processors and storage and even apps all on demand with backups)
B. P2P with cheap clients and cheap shared in-client storage
I don't know which way is better. High bandwidth will get cheaper and more available every day.
For now, I'm betting on DumbClient/MonsterServer being the cheapest both initially and in the long run when 10Mb connections to the Net are the norm.
Yet internal P2P seems more secure and more fault tolerant.
Database Object just means a hive IS a database. One object could be "MarsVoltaSong.mp3" or "John Jones Contact Record"
Your contact manager would access the hive to retrieve your contacts. Super-secure databases could have public description keys with encrypted actual data.
In my 15 years of IT consulting, no network has provided data safety transparency cheaply or consistently enough. Clusters and fault tolerance both cost more than downtime in my experience.
We desperately need a better way to access data in a corporate network.
My favorite customers are those architects and engineers who avoid networking except for the Net. Seriously, sneakernet and peer-to-peer has shown the least downtime I've seen.
I think p2p networks will see a comeback if a torrent-like protocol can grow to be speedy. My customers are not banks, but they need 100% uptime as every day is a beat-the-deadline day.
If someone can extend and combine an internal torrent system with a decent file cataloging and searching system, they'll see huge money. I have some 150 user CAD networks just waiting for it.
What would a hive network need?
* Serverless * Files hived to 3+ workstations * Database object hiving * File modification ability (save new file in hive, rename previous file as old version, delete really old versions after user configurable changes) * "Wayback Machine" feature from old versions * PCs disconnected from hive will self correct upon reconnection
It is very complex right now, but my bet is that the P2P network will trump client-server for the short run. The "client is the server" vs "the server is the client"?
City buses cause more pollution per rider than almost any vehicle.
After you factor average riders per bus day, mileage per rider, and the cost of maintenance, the average short bus trip is over $10 (in Chicago) per rider. Some say $18 per trip. Just divide the yearly operating budget by yearly riders and you see a frightening figure.
Sure, one rider may not utilize a lot of gas, but the bureaucracy supporting our CTA is enormous. And all those city employees? Many drive cars.
Slashdot Mirror
UK lawlessness, nothing new?
The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.
This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.
TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.
Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.
And surely bills from either side encompass strictly a single regulation and would never be used for pork.
It really peeves me when we add laws on top of laws rather than repealing bad ones and drafting new ones to cover changes. Innovation has occurred for thousands of years without copyright or patent protection. Free use wasn't even a phrase until we started to see tyrannical laws that abuse basic rights, inherent to all humans regardless of what their governments say or do.
Whatever movement is made in the law books, nothing will matter. The Internet combines the wishes of billions, disregarding every law. Funny thing is, the Internet really lets the free market shine without trampling on the basic human rights.
The Net won't murder, won't rape, won't rob from your home or incur taxes you don't want to pay. It won't restrict your right to speak freely, it won't take your guns away, it won't harbor troops in your home.
As more people embrace the Net, more will use the rights they were born with. More will commit legal crimes that are morally acceptable.
In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions.
Do bloggers worry about copyright? Do musicians on purevolume worry? Do researchers posting their theses care?
Everything I dream of in my free market world is coming true online, and no law is stopping it. Boucher's bill won't do jack. Repeal copyright and you'll see more innovation than ever.
Why release good music freely? Fans may pay you for more, or a production company might hire you to write something for them, or you might gain customers for your live shows, or you might get people to your site to gain AdSense revenue. Copyright won't protect your income-via-monopoly much longer.
Laws and mandates will make this worse. Only the mighty dollar, YOUR mighty dollar, will make a difference.
If you use Cogent or Level3, dump them. Find another provider.
If you make the Top Tiers a government-controlled service, expect long term problems like censorship, taxation and regulations on sub-level tiers.
Neither company involved in this dispute wants to do t is. They need to work it out, or other companies will find a solution and take the customers.
If you're desperate to provide data to multiple top tiers, pay for a host that is connected to multiple backbones.
There is zero need to mandate anything. Let the free market provide and we'll be safer in the long run. Let government provide and we'll see a slowly creeping tyranny online.
I can't believe I'm hearing a call for more regulation, even U.N. control. The lack of rational thought and disregard of unintended consequences amazes me.
The Internet has flourished without much control, run by Both large and small businesses for one reason: profit. Information is free yet its distribution is profitable.
If we give government control (taxation, censorship and worse(, we'll see less freedom.
Why did this jinx happen? Because the top tier providers aren't making a profit. But their calls for support go unheard, so they found a way to make it news.
When businesses that rely on the infrastructure paid for by private industries, they have high expectations. But they're not paying for that infrastructure!
Trust me, no one wants to bifurcate the Internet. Its a ploy to show a problem that needs to be solved. You will Never see it done for control, censorship or monopoly powers. You'll only see it when consumers don't pay for what they use. See California's old electric company that was forced to sell energy at a loss. They went bankrupt.
Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation.
I don't expect any successes with the EU, except for the pocket books of those with clout.
Video is not portable in any successful manner. Cell phone providers can't get people interested; portable mini-LCD DVD players spend more time on family room shelves than in-use.
Music videos? Does MTV even play them anymore? Who watches videos?
My impression is that Apple is trying to make the market viable, yet the iPod's popularity rode on years of MP3 success from Napster-on. Who trades videos over P2P or buys video DVDs from Borders, Wal-Mart or Amazon?
Is it a workaround from the RIAA? Doubtful. Is it attempting to fill up the hole in a dwindling music video market? Unlikely. Is it a feature that will get a huge initial "ooh toy" interest that will never get used after the first few weeks?
I can't see why this is needed unless Apple foresees video Podcasts from independent video "bloggers" or DIY TV show sites, but even that is a stretch.
The iPod coasted on the coattails of a huge market without a user friendly portable player. Video iPod is trying to invent a market boom.
This will easily prevent piracy as everyone knows it takes multiple plays of a DVD to copy it.
Sheesh.
$3/disc is not cost effective with so many DVDs available for $9. Plus the need for new hardware? Nice try, been there, done that.
I hate copyright. I believe it is just a coercion by government to provide a "time limited" monopoly.
In this situation, copyright doesn't make sense. Copyright uses coercion to supply an author with zero reason to police the distribution of their work. The laws also use coercion to give the consumer a loophole to an author's "property."
Honestly, without copyright law, we'd have two situations I forsee:
1. Authors develop copy protection schemes to control access.
2. Authors can freely distribute the work ("public domain") and offer value added services to generate more income.
I feel the Internet will drastically affect copyright law, showing how futile more laws will be.
Delta time? You can only know the time delta if you know the time it was sent and the current time.
Ahh, signal strength correlation would seem possible.
It seems like a huge amount of work. Why not just pay a few media companies to transmit a time coded ping and base location on that? Trying to keep abreast of tower location changes is a huge waste of manpower, IMO.
The ambiguity of light (wave and/or particle) has always made my head spin. To think that a bulb gives off light in "infinite" (lower limit time angle of tau) blows my mind.
Affiliating light with quantum theory seems like a stretch as quantum theory answers seem deus ex machina to me. I'm sure "wiser" people give this discovery merit, but even the "advanced information" link is ambiguous.
If we can now comb out light frequencies to within 15 digits of accuracy, it seems like we can increase bandwidth over laser optics by many orders of magnitude. The long term gain in communications bandwidth could be huge if the technique is feasible cheaply by industry.
If this technique can somehow be utilized with the radio spectrum instead of light, I wonder if similar increases in data space could be realized. I never contemplated light to radio in the physical sense.
Network protocol pings are. Radio transmissions might not be.
The 'ping' our attempt made was merely an analog "beep" on a given frequency, with 3 differences frequencies. Had we incorporated digital time coding instead of just a beep, we could have triangulated properly. Too bad we had no clue about that.
Sounds interesting. As geeky teens we tried making our own positioning system using 3 transmitters, one receiver and a PC. It never worked well as we didn't know how to properly encode the current time into the 'pings' to calculate the transit time.
Do all these broadcast cells broadcast the time code? Are the clocks in sync or do they need to be? I'm guessing without a way to "time" pings received, there's no easy way to validate your position.
The "need" to find yourself seems sort of a waste for most. GPS is nice but I'm more interested in real time user voting on traffic (on their road, in their direction). GPS + realtime traffic heuristics could offer faster escape routes during evacuations, or better gas mileage by avoiding idle periods.
EBITDA seems to be the current standard but not in my world. I stopped listening to the MBAs of the world a decade ago.
I assess my dividends in t is order:
1. Net Profit
2. Value of stale inventory versus long term debt
3. Net change in overhead versus gross income
4. demand of products sold versus supply of competition
5. Need for infrastructure updates
Corporations I invest in ("own") don't pay tax. They don't make security investments (interest). Depreciating products aren't a large investment, and amortizable items are preferably sold as used products (ie held as inventory rather than amortized).
Businesses I have some control over should return 100% or more annually. Those I help out should net 20% minimum.
If I can't get my money back in 5 years, it isn't worth it. Most of my investments aren't over $10K. Today's market offers a multitude of business options without needing to invest $100K's.
Average return should be 30% between winners and losers. I have one business that I'll lose almost $50K on due to my mistake. Ouch.
Yet ancient content isn't a driving element for even tiny groups, is it?
...that we don't?
It seems to me that they're throwing money at an unnecessary application. Does Yahoo know something that we don't? I'd venture that they're starting with PD books to shake the bugs out of their platform so the app works well in round 2.
Round 2 (current commercial books) won't occur without a massive copyright law change or support of the Author's Guild.
Hmm.
OPM = Other People's Money
It amazes me constantly how middle class people invest so much in pies in the sky. I invest my money directly in local businesses that have products or services to sell. My 2 VC friends bust their asses lying to investors in order to get a commission.
VC in OSS is an even higher risk than investing in closed software -- where's the revenue?
VC is the ultimate form of gambling. Any decent small business investment should reap 20% dividends. The VC investment groups seem to gamble on getting 1000% back if the product gets bought out by someone bigger.
There was. I think it was called Orange or something fruity. I played with it and it was terrible.
The solution is out there in the ether. Even over WANs it is viable as nodes can search for chunk updates by merely requesting Address/Key instead of Address/Key/Data. Of course topology outage would be murder, but that's true with client-server, too.
I have a customer with 1TB available in the server, 700GB in use. Their 150 workstations have 30TB free. Their server frequently gets bogged down and needs constant hardware improvements. A Virtual File Server (hive) would increase uptime, decrease costs and increase performance.
Too many ideas :)
Here are some:
* Bandwidth designation for each node
* AI style workgroup-relations caching -- users embed information into chunks offering other hiveminds a chance to stock up on common data for faster response
* Address/Key First sorting for confirming files accessed are the most recent
* Data-In-Use flags (flags should be hive updated every so often to entrust that data is still in use)
* Momentum Updates (Organized hive updates through friendship pairs or quads keeping data chunks closer to home)
* Administration Worldmap (show chunk usage, lifespan, friendship groups, connection uptime)
IMHO, torrent is too anonymous. I'd rather see chunks offered within the friendship pair/quad only. Easier to notify hiveminds of updates or in-use flagging.
Backups are integrated in the hive. I think a backup node in the hive could stream backups constantly.
Authentications/permissions can be realized by using a registry-like Address/Key/Source structure. The address of a chunk in the hive designates what data it is, the key can be 0 for public or an encryption key known to client apps permitted to access the chunk. Source is the data (encrypted or otherwise).
Since the client node is responsible for reassimilating chunks it hived out, the encryption is twofold: cracking the key only gets your a bite. You need to know what other chunks connect to yours to eat a full plate.
The problem to me IS desperate. In all of my businesses my main goal is "how do I make myself obsolete?" It sounds counterintuitive yet it lets my customers see that I don't want to do the same work ad infinitum. I want to return a nice profit to my customers for the money they pay me. $150/hour should save my customers $225/hour in added productivity. Down time is a huge net loss.
Proper data utilization is money made and time saved. Programmers facilitate that. Accessing the data to be utilized is my job. I want it transparent with 100% uptime. Client dies? Pop in a replacement.
I've played with it. It seems more of a backup bandaid than a realtime data hive like I'm thinking.
I may try to torrent a corporate network if I can find a good file "explorer" or file access subsystem that integrates into Windows.
iFolder is so-1990's to me, heh. Freenet seems doomed!
The war is on:
A. huge megaservers online serving thin/dumb terminals over high speed network connections (renting processors and storage and even apps all on demand with backups)
B. P2P with cheap clients and cheap shared in-client storage
I don't know which way is better. High bandwidth will get cheaper and more available every day.
For now, I'm betting on DumbClient/MonsterServer being the cheapest both initially and in the long run when 10Mb connections to the Net are the norm.
Yet internal P2P seems more secure and more fault tolerant.
Database Object just means a hive IS a database. One object could be "MarsVoltaSong.mp3" or "John Jones Contact Record"
Your contact manager would access the hive to retrieve your contacts. Super-secure databases could have public description keys with encrypted actual data.
In my 15 years of IT consulting, no network has provided data safety transparency cheaply or consistently enough. Clusters and fault tolerance both cost more than downtime in my experience.
We desperately need a better way to access data in a corporate network.
My favorite customers are those architects and engineers who avoid networking except for the Net. Seriously, sneakernet and peer-to-peer has shown the least downtime I've seen.
I think p2p networks will see a comeback if a torrent-like protocol can grow to be speedy. My customers are not banks, but they need 100% uptime as every day is a beat-the-deadline day.
If someone can extend and combine an internal torrent system with a decent file cataloging and searching system, they'll see huge money. I have some 150 user CAD networks just waiting for it.
What would a hive network need?
* Serverless
* Files hived to 3+ workstations
* Database object hiving
* File modification ability (save new file in hive, rename previous file as old version, delete really old versions after user configurable changes)
* "Wayback Machine" feature from old versions
* PCs disconnected from hive will self correct upon reconnection
It is very complex right now, but my bet is that the P2P network will trump client-server for the short run. The "client is the server" vs "the server is the client"?
City buses cause more pollution per rider than almost any vehicle.
After you factor average riders per bus day, mileage per rider, and the cost of maintenance, the average short bus trip is over $10 (in Chicago) per rider. Some say $18 per trip. Just divide the yearly operating budget by yearly riders and you see a frightening figure.
Sure, one rider may not utilize a lot of gas, but the bureaucracy supporting our CTA is enormous. And all those city employees? Many drive cars.