I guess I didn't mean usability, I meant functionality. I find that Windows offers the best balance and that's not because I'm a regular user. I've used KDE a lot in the past and I just get frustrated.
Another thing that has to go is the constant forking of applications. Yeah, it's great for free coding and all, but there needs to be a solid effort to make each application equal to or better than its Windows equivalent. Right now there's dozens of applications that are about 75% of what they need to be.
I'm sure it's been said many times here, but I think that it is really this simple:
+ Simplify the interface and make it usable - As much as I love KDE, there are just too many options. - GNOME needs to be more usable. Sometimes I think that it was made for 5 year olds. - Once you get over the fact that Office 2007 is not Office 2003, Office 2007 is a good example of how to make things simple AND usable.
+ Get support from big companies that sell to schools
+ Increase interoperability with Windows applications
Linux is on its way and I think that Windows XP highlights just how far Linux has come. As much as it many not seem like it, Windows may have moved more towards Linux than vice versa. Linux developers need to understand what Apple has done. Linux is great, but I think that the people who develop it don't understand the people who actually use the products!
Saying that EBAY's price falling as a result of this controversy is improperly attributing causation. EBAY had an upside earnings surprise at the end of October and peaked (also when the market peaked) and has since then had earnings that were as expected and they most recently disappointed. As much has I hate calling EBAY a technology company, that's how the Street views them. Technology has been murdered since the end of October and EBAY has been taken with it. Ultimately, the share price of a stock is determined by supply and demand. People don't want EBAY right now and the company is worth less as a result.
A lot of people may not like this, but I think it's time for people to get real. When you do massive amounts of downloading, you do affect other people's service. Additionally, my experience has shown me that a very significant number of people download illegally. Sure, there are good uses for things like BitTorrent if you need ISOs or other stuff, but the way people pirate stuff wit reckless abandon is just ridiculous. You don't have a right to steal copyrighted materials! Period! To think that you do is just childish. If you get caught, own up to it.
Slashdot posters seem to have a way of skewing things and then the rest of the community just piles on the gang-tackle. Let's get a few things straight here:
- Comcast is still has strong growth - People underestimate the strength of the Triple Play and how people are more likely to keep their service - Comcast is working with Sprint to offer a "quadruple play" that includes cell phone service - Comcast has been signing up telephone customers at a rate of something like 9 for every 1 cable customer that they lose - DOCSIS 3.0 takes away the advantage that Verizon's FiOS has in the short-term - Most people can't even use the speed that Verizon FiOS offers - Most bandwidth bottlenecks are at the server, not the client - Verizon FiOS isn't even available in most places - Comcast has a fiber backbone that allows them to run fiber for the "last mile" if they need to offer fiber speeds - Satillite TV didn't hurt Comcast - Comcast has many media and sports properties such as E!, The Golf Channel, and the Philadelphia Flyers - Cable industry companies are friendly towards each other where Verizon has to work with a hostile environment - Comcast has historically been good at monetizing their assets - Don't underestimate Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts
The list of positives for the company goes on and on. Don't count Comcast out. Competition will only help them charge forward.
Disclosure: I had an internship with Comcast over the summer. I am also a Comcast shareholder.
You bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move to a city and start walking or using public transportation. Centralization both limits destruction of open space and the energy that is required to move people to where they have to be. I know that might be beyond what some people are willing to do, but it's the only real solution.
On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to suffer everyday.
This article seems to be in the typical tradition of Slashdot sensationalism. HP bringing a new product to market that competes with Google's and Apple's products doesn't mean that one should automatically assume that older products become obsolete. HP's product doesn't solve the fundamental purpose of the other companies' applications. Google's and Apple's products are able to be used anywhere simply by logging into the web interface. This is the simplicity that people want. People have enough problems just from setting up their computers, so it is doubtful that within five, or even ten years, that people are going to want to manage a central home server. For better or worse, software as a service is something that big companies are pushing more and more. Despite technical or philosophical objections, its adoption will come down to one thing: whether a significant number of people believe that it increases their quality of life. Software as a service makes sense to a lot of people. Only their willingness pay for it will dictate how quickly it becomes popular.
Let me preface this post by first saying that I have played plenty of games of many different kinds, whether they be FPSs, RTSs, or RPGs. Some were not violent while others were.
I don't see this issue as a matter of whether video games are bad for children. This issue has more to do with society and how it relates to family and more generally accountability. Fifty years ago, a matter like this wouldn't really be a question since parents either wouldn't give children money to buy such things. If this wouldn't happen, the store owner may not have sold such goods to a child since he may have been a family friend, a neighbor, or someone who didn't believe that a child should have "bad" games. Now shameless commercialism allows people to do almost whatever they want since people are no longer directly shareholders in the lives of each other. It may be cynical, but it seems like people care less about each other than they once did.
The fact is that society has been liberalizing and I don't mean "liberalization" in a political sense. When I say "liberalization", I mean that people are free to do as they wish, no matter their age or any other factor. Parents let their kids run rampant in today's society. Freedom is great, but it can come at a price when people aren't careful about how they take their freedoms. When someone goes wrong now, they don't look at themselves as the source of an issue. It's always someone else's fault. Accountability of people's actions has been left to the government. This is why there are so many lawsuits today. People can't settle issues between themselves because they no longer choose to do so. Furthermore, people don't want to accept the fact that they may have been wrong.
Are games bad for children? It's almost impossible to say since we don't have the ability to test cases in parallel universes. The origins of many of society's problems have a common source. All one has to do is take a basic psychology class and observe a few different family situations to realize that how a child turns our directly correlates to how they were raised. If people were more concerned about being good parents instead of obsessively focusing on their careers or blaming video game companies or the government, society would benefit.
I always thought that the purpose of the free market was to work issues like this out. If people do not want to have a tiered internet, then do not use the ISPs that utilize that method. Regulation certainly has its purposes, but when there are so many companies and so much competition out there, this should not be an issue yet.
First of all, make sure you read "heat pump" as "electic resistance heating". That's what's meant by "heat pump" around here.
In Philadelphia, PECO, who was bought out by Excelon, has been paying new home builders to put heat pumps into their homes so they can get the extra business, thus displacing oil and gas heaters. Heating a house with a heat pump can become extremely expensive, which means that it is economically inefficient. It becomes so expensive that people often don't heat their house much during the winter. This isn't a problem in the South where people may use their heaters only a few times per year.
As for the heat being unconfortable, since most people typically choose to keep their thermostat down very low, one would be cold. Secondly, the air that is blown from a heat pump is the heat level that you want. This may sound fine, but if you are looking to get warm, 70-75 degrees Fahrenheit air blowing around is typically very undesirable. Oil and gas heaters tend to blow air that is warmer than what your thermostat is set to, so you feel warmer and the house becomes equalized.
Forced air systems are really nice for air conditioning, but I still prefer radiators for heating purposes. Radiators stay warm for a while and you can always directly heat something by just placing the item on the radiator.
Tens of thousands of dollars to buy a diesel vehicle instead of a gasoline vehicle? This is completely wrong. The Duramax diesel option on GMC and Chevy trucks is $5,310. I don't think anyone would buy a diesel engine if it cost "tens of thousands of dollars".
I don't mind living in an overbuilt house. When someone's walking around on a floor above me, I don't hear their footsteps through the ceiling. When someone closes a door, it doesn't shake the entire house. If I accidently hit a wall, my hand won't go through it because the wall is made of plaster and not drywall. Less isn't always more and this is certainly the case with housing. It is beneficial if a house is overbuilt since it will be much stronger and longer lasting.
With your point talking about heating systems, I guess it all depends where you live. A lot of the new suburban construction around my city have been putting in heat pumps. Heat pumps are not only very inefficient, but they cost many multiples of what a fuel powered heater would cost for the same level of heating. Heat pumps are also noted as a very uncomfortable heat.
And your argument on insulation has one main problem. Ironically enough, mold is becoming a huge problem in insulated houses specifically because the insulation traps moisture and doesn't allow the house to breathe properly. More and more people seem to be having respiratory problems because of this effect. Insulation isn't all that it's made out to be and it may be creating a problem that people will only discover many years from now.
Here's an article about pollution due to vehicles from the New Scientist. It shows that diesel produces about 33% less greenhouse gases than gasoline. As for the other negatives of diesel, who says we can't do better? People don't drive diesel cars in America because it isn't important enough to care about the benefits of diesel. Diesel cars are so popular in Europe because of how expensive fuel is and running a diesel car is more efficient.
Actually, I happen to like cars quite a bit, but I also see the value of city life. I don't advocate forcing people riding bikes everywhere either. Let's just look at simple logistics. You have to drive many miles to get to a store in the suburbs. You could walk, take public transportation, or drive a short distance to the same store in the city. The thing is that driving in the city is not a necessity, it can be done if you want to or not.
And about moving to the city, you don't seem to understand what city life is all about. City life isn't about living in Manhattan on the 50th floor of a high rise appartment. City life isn't about what you watch on TV or in movies. Most people who live in cities either live in apartments, row homes, doubles, or singles. One size doesn't fit all. No one forces you to live in any one kind too! You can live with your half acre of ground or you can live on a street with nothing more than a sidewalk or you could even live on a street with both. I know it seems like a bizarre idea since most people only know what they see on TV. The fact is that housing is incredibly diverse in most cities, especially ones in the Northeast. Just find your neighborhood and you'll be happy.
As for the whole train option, you seem to miss the point. Mass transit helps to lessen pollution because of economies of scale. If you get your electricity from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, etc. power, electric trollies are an excellent option. Riding a bus, subway, or train can lessening traffic and take advantage of having one engine power 40 people instead of 40 engines. The whole point of mass transit is that if you have a place you go everyday, like work, then you take the same bus, train, trolley, or subway everyday. You'd then have a car when you want to get somewhere on your own time. You could even take your car to work everyday and this is more desirable because the drive would probably be shorter.
I'm not saying everyone needs to ride bikes and take public transportation. I'm just saying that if more people lived closer to where they work or could easily take public transportation to where they work, then the need for fuels goes down greatly. If more people could easily walk places instead of being forced to drive, the need for fuels go down. My whole point is that people need choices. Choices don't exist when you live out in the middle of the suburbs and have to have a car to get anywhere.
Bike lanes shouldn't be a problem soon. Most of the newly resurfaced roads around where I live have bike lanes because the federal government pays for painting the lines so long as bike lanes are included.
My post wasn't about completely replacing oil as our most important resource. The point was to decrease usage of oil, thus decreasing dependence, not eliminate. This would allow use to investigate alternatives. You can't force development of new technology, it's a process that takes time to be done correctly.
As for diesel, look up biodiesel. The whole point of the diesel engine was to originally not even need petroleum. Only an abundance of oil has caused us to become reliant on it.
Then you don't have to live in the downtown area. Right now, many people are moving back to the city for a few reasons, one of which is a lowered cost of living. Although it may be hard to believe, many cities have suffered greatly due to suburbanization, but at the same time real estate costs have just completely dropped. With property values so low and housing being dirt cheap, people have found that it's a lot cheaper to buy a house. Even though real estate values are now rising because of this realization, it's still considerable cheaper to live in the city. Sure, things like car insurance and taxes may be high, but even this hasn't stopped people.
Also, most of the people moving back have found that new construction is bad. The term "cardboard houses in cornfields" best describes the production line trait of new housing. Before homes used to be build out of stone, bricks, mortar, and plaster walling. The craftsmanship that used to go into a house was at one time immense. The new city dewellers realize this and love living in older homes that have much more character.
Don't forget about public transportation. You almost don't need a car in the city because of buses and trains. Newer cities lack good public transportation systems, but just come to the Northeast and look at the infrastructure that used to maintain the factories.
Living in the city once defined the American way of life. Sadly, we've lost this way of life and sense of community with the old cities' distinct neighborhoods. It seems to be returning with reurbanization, however more people need to realize the benefits and not just think that city life is only about high rise apartments.
All of this stuff about fuel cells is really nice for the future, but I see two much more simple ways to decrease dependence on foreign oil. First of all, why don't people drive diesel cars like they do in Europe? Diesel is not only more efficient, but most diesel technology is actually cleaner than gasoline. It also doesn't depend on a complete paradigm shift.
Secondly, why don't more people move back to city and thus not need cars as much? Before electric trolley cars used to be in place of buses. People could walk to work because of how close things used to be. American society has become too suburbanized and this is one of the biggest problems with regards to the fuel problem. Don't complain about fuel problems when you live 25 miles from your job and can't take the train!
You don't even have to buy a Star Wars product to know most of the storylines in the Star Wars universe. So long as you have an Internet connection, you can read the Star Wars Databank.
Ford would probably sue you because you decided to modify your Focus for speed. Are people ever going to learn that everyday drivers are not muscle, sport, and race cars?
With regard to this subject, I think an obligatory link to Maddox is necessary.
I completely agree. Ebay has a nearly perfect business model since all they have to do is make sure that their website is working and has enough bandwidth at all times. Although they do provide a buyer with some protection, PayPal helps out even more. The rest is left up to the consumer, who usually needs to practice commonsense anyway.
Ebay's low risk, low captial method got it to where it is today. Slashdot's overly cynical nature is unnecessay. Ebay works and its great.
Believe it or not, everyone that works for Microsoft isn't an evil person trying to crush the free software movement. The point of this article seems to be that a Microsoft employee recognizes Firefox's superiority. If this guy is able to admit openly on a Microsoft website that he doesn't even use IE, maybe developers should listen to him. Sure, making a Longhorn only version is not the solution. GNOME should investigate these features to see if they are worth trying to duplicate. Ideas shouldn't be cynically disregarded just because of where they originated.
If the Mozilla developers feel that cross platform is most important (which I feel is most important), they should just consider what these suggestions mean and maybe make them design objectives if they are at all possible.
Slashdot Mirror
It was expected that the 787 Dreamliner would be delayed even longer. This is welcome news. Just look at the BA chart.
I made a mistake. GNOME is extremely usable. I meant that it is not as functional as it needs to be.
I guess I didn't mean usability, I meant functionality. I find that Windows offers the best balance and that's not because I'm a regular user. I've used KDE a lot in the past and I just get frustrated.
Another thing that has to go is the constant forking of applications. Yeah, it's great for free coding and all, but there needs to be a solid effort to make each application equal to or better than its Windows equivalent. Right now there's dozens of applications that are about 75% of what they need to be.
I'm sure it's been said many times here, but I think that it is really this simple:
+ Simplify the interface and make it usable
- As much as I love KDE, there are just too many options.
- GNOME needs to be more usable. Sometimes I think that it was made for 5 year olds.
- Once you get over the fact that Office 2007 is not Office 2003, Office 2007 is a good example of how to make things simple AND usable.
+ Get support from big companies that sell to schools
+ Increase interoperability with Windows applications
Linux is on its way and I think that Windows XP highlights just how far Linux has come. As much as it many not seem like it, Windows may have moved more towards Linux than vice versa. Linux developers need to understand what Apple has done. Linux is great, but I think that the people who develop it don't understand the people who actually use the products!
Saying that EBAY's price falling as a result of this controversy is improperly attributing causation. EBAY had an upside earnings surprise at the end of October and peaked (also when the market peaked) and has since then had earnings that were as expected and they most recently disappointed. As much has I hate calling EBAY a technology company, that's how the Street views them. Technology has been murdered since the end of October and EBAY has been taken with it. Ultimately, the share price of a stock is determined by supply and demand. People don't want EBAY right now and the company is worth less as a result.
A lot of people may not like this, but I think it's time for people to get real. When you do massive amounts of downloading, you do affect other people's service. Additionally, my experience has shown me that a very significant number of people download illegally. Sure, there are good uses for things like BitTorrent if you need ISOs or other stuff, but the way people pirate stuff wit reckless abandon is just ridiculous. You don't have a right to steal copyrighted materials! Period! To think that you do is just childish. If you get caught, own up to it.
Let me correct myself on my one point. I meant to say that satellite TV didn't run Comcast out of town.
Disclosure: I had an internship with Comcast over the summer. I am also a Comcast shareholder.
Slashdot posters seem to have a way of skewing things and then the rest of the community just piles on the gang-tackle. Let's get a few things straight here:
- Comcast is still has strong growth
- People underestimate the strength of the Triple Play and how people are more likely to keep their service
- Comcast is working with Sprint to offer a "quadruple play" that includes cell phone service
- Comcast has been signing up telephone customers at a rate of something like 9 for every 1 cable customer that they lose
- DOCSIS 3.0 takes away the advantage that Verizon's FiOS has in the short-term
- Most people can't even use the speed that Verizon FiOS offers
- Most bandwidth bottlenecks are at the server, not the client
- Verizon FiOS isn't even available in most places
- Comcast has a fiber backbone that allows them to run fiber for the "last mile" if they need to offer fiber speeds
- Satillite TV didn't hurt Comcast
- Comcast has many media and sports properties such as E!, The Golf Channel, and the Philadelphia Flyers
- Cable industry companies are friendly towards each other where Verizon has to work with a hostile environment
- Comcast has historically been good at monetizing their assets
- Don't underestimate Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts
The list of positives for the company goes on and on. Don't count Comcast out. Competition will only help them charge forward.
Disclosure: I had an internship with Comcast over the summer. I am also a Comcast shareholder.
You bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move to a city and start walking or using public transportation. Centralization both limits destruction of open space and the energy that is required to move people to where they have to be. I know that might be beyond what some people are willing to do, but it's the only real solution.
On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to suffer everyday.
Claroline is one of the best CMS solutions for schools that I have seen, even when compared to commercial alternatives. It can be accessed at:
http://www.claroline.net/
This article seems to be in the typical tradition of Slashdot sensationalism. HP bringing a new product to market that competes with Google's and Apple's products doesn't mean that one should automatically assume that older products become obsolete. HP's product doesn't solve the fundamental purpose of the other companies' applications. Google's and Apple's products are able to be used anywhere simply by logging into the web interface. This is the simplicity that people want. People have enough problems just from setting up their computers, so it is doubtful that within five, or even ten years, that people are going to want to manage a central home server. For better or worse, software as a service is something that big companies are pushing more and more. Despite technical or philosophical objections, its adoption will come down to one thing: whether a significant number of people believe that it increases their quality of life. Software as a service makes sense to a lot of people. Only their willingness pay for it will dictate how quickly it becomes popular.
Let me preface this post by first saying that I have played plenty of games of many different kinds, whether they be FPSs, RTSs, or RPGs. Some were not violent while others were.
I don't see this issue as a matter of whether video games are bad for children. This issue has more to do with society and how it relates to family and more generally accountability. Fifty years ago, a matter like this wouldn't really be a question since parents either wouldn't give children money to buy such things. If this wouldn't happen, the store owner may not have sold such goods to a child since he may have been a family friend, a neighbor, or someone who didn't believe that a child should have "bad" games. Now shameless commercialism allows people to do almost whatever they want since people are no longer directly shareholders in the lives of each other. It may be cynical, but it seems like people care less about each other than they once did.
The fact is that society has been liberalizing and I don't mean "liberalization" in a political sense. When I say "liberalization", I mean that people are free to do as they wish, no matter their age or any other factor. Parents let their kids run rampant in today's society. Freedom is great, but it can come at a price when people aren't careful about how they take their freedoms. When someone goes wrong now, they don't look at themselves as the source of an issue. It's always someone else's fault. Accountability of people's actions has been left to the government. This is why there are so many lawsuits today. People can't settle issues between themselves because they no longer choose to do so. Furthermore, people don't want to accept the fact that they may have been wrong.
Are games bad for children? It's almost impossible to say since we don't have the ability to test cases in parallel universes. The origins of many of society's problems have a common source. All one has to do is take a basic psychology class and observe a few different family situations to realize that how a child turns our directly correlates to how they were raised. If people were more concerned about being good parents instead of obsessively focusing on their careers or blaming video game companies or the government, society would benefit.
I always thought that the purpose of the free market was to work issues like this out. If people do not want to have a tiered internet, then do not use the ISPs that utilize that method. Regulation certainly has its purposes, but when there are so many companies and so much competition out there, this should not be an issue yet.
First of all, make sure you read "heat pump" as "electic resistance heating". That's what's meant by "heat pump" around here.
In Philadelphia, PECO, who was bought out by Excelon, has been paying new home builders to put heat pumps into their homes so they can get the extra business, thus displacing oil and gas heaters. Heating a house with a heat pump can become extremely expensive, which means that it is economically inefficient. It becomes so expensive that people often don't heat their house much during the winter. This isn't a problem in the South where people may use their heaters only a few times per year.
As for the heat being unconfortable, since most people typically choose to keep their thermostat down very low, one would be cold. Secondly, the air that is blown from a heat pump is the heat level that you want. This may sound fine, but if you are looking to get warm, 70-75 degrees Fahrenheit air blowing around is typically very undesirable. Oil and gas heaters tend to blow air that is warmer than what your thermostat is set to, so you feel warmer and the house becomes equalized.
Forced air systems are really nice for air conditioning, but I still prefer radiators for heating purposes. Radiators stay warm for a while and you can always directly heat something by just placing the item on the radiator.
Tens of thousands of dollars to buy a diesel vehicle instead of a gasoline vehicle? This is completely wrong. The Duramax diesel option on GMC and Chevy trucks is $5,310. I don't think anyone would buy a diesel engine if it cost "tens of thousands of dollars".
I don't mind living in an overbuilt house. When someone's walking around on a floor above me, I don't hear their footsteps through the ceiling. When someone closes a door, it doesn't shake the entire house. If I accidently hit a wall, my hand won't go through it because the wall is made of plaster and not drywall. Less isn't always more and this is certainly the case with housing. It is beneficial if a house is overbuilt since it will be much stronger and longer lasting.
With your point talking about heating systems, I guess it all depends where you live. A lot of the new suburban construction around my city have been putting in heat pumps. Heat pumps are not only very inefficient, but they cost many multiples of what a fuel powered heater would cost for the same level of heating. Heat pumps are also noted as a very uncomfortable heat.
And your argument on insulation has one main problem. Ironically enough, mold is becoming a huge problem in insulated houses specifically because the insulation traps moisture and doesn't allow the house to breathe properly. More and more people seem to be having respiratory problems because of this effect. Insulation isn't all that it's made out to be and it may be creating a problem that people will only discover many years from now.
Here's an article about pollution due to vehicles from the New Scientist. It shows that diesel produces about 33% less greenhouse gases than gasoline. As for the other negatives of diesel, who says we can't do better? People don't drive diesel cars in America because it isn't important enough to care about the benefits of diesel. Diesel cars are so popular in Europe because of how expensive fuel is and running a diesel car is more efficient.
Actually, I happen to like cars quite a bit, but I also see the value of city life. I don't advocate forcing people riding bikes everywhere either. Let's just look at simple logistics. You have to drive many miles to get to a store in the suburbs. You could walk, take public transportation, or drive a short distance to the same store in the city. The thing is that driving in the city is not a necessity, it can be done if you want to or not.
And about moving to the city, you don't seem to understand what city life is all about. City life isn't about living in Manhattan on the 50th floor of a high rise appartment. City life isn't about what you watch on TV or in movies. Most people who live in cities either live in apartments, row homes, doubles, or singles. One size doesn't fit all. No one forces you to live in any one kind too! You can live with your half acre of ground or you can live on a street with nothing more than a sidewalk or you could even live on a street with both. I know it seems like a bizarre idea since most people only know what they see on TV. The fact is that housing is incredibly diverse in most cities, especially ones in the Northeast. Just find your neighborhood and you'll be happy.
As for the whole train option, you seem to miss the point. Mass transit helps to lessen pollution because of economies of scale. If you get your electricity from nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, etc. power, electric trollies are an excellent option. Riding a bus, subway, or train can lessening traffic and take advantage of having one engine power 40 people instead of 40 engines. The whole point of mass transit is that if you have a place you go everyday, like work, then you take the same bus, train, trolley, or subway everyday. You'd then have a car when you want to get somewhere on your own time. You could even take your car to work everyday and this is more desirable because the drive would probably be shorter.
I'm not saying everyone needs to ride bikes and take public transportation. I'm just saying that if more people lived closer to where they work or could easily take public transportation to where they work, then the need for fuels goes down greatly. If more people could easily walk places instead of being forced to drive, the need for fuels go down. My whole point is that people need choices. Choices don't exist when you live out in the middle of the suburbs and have to have a car to get anywhere.
Bike lanes shouldn't be a problem soon. Most of the newly resurfaced roads around where I live have bike lanes because the federal government pays for painting the lines so long as bike lanes are included.
My post wasn't about completely replacing oil as our most important resource. The point was to decrease usage of oil, thus decreasing dependence, not eliminate. This would allow use to investigate alternatives. You can't force development of new technology, it's a process that takes time to be done correctly.
As for diesel, look up biodiesel. The whole point of the diesel engine was to originally not even need petroleum. Only an abundance of oil has caused us to become reliant on it.
Then you don't have to live in the downtown area. Right now, many people are moving back to the city for a few reasons, one of which is a lowered cost of living. Although it may be hard to believe, many cities have suffered greatly due to suburbanization, but at the same time real estate costs have just completely dropped. With property values so low and housing being dirt cheap, people have found that it's a lot cheaper to buy a house. Even though real estate values are now rising because of this realization, it's still considerable cheaper to live in the city. Sure, things like car insurance and taxes may be high, but even this hasn't stopped people.
Also, most of the people moving back have found that new construction is bad. The term "cardboard houses in cornfields" best describes the production line trait of new housing. Before homes used to be build out of stone, bricks, mortar, and plaster walling. The craftsmanship that used to go into a house was at one time immense. The new city dewellers realize this and love living in older homes that have much more character.
Don't forget about public transportation. You almost don't need a car in the city because of buses and trains. Newer cities lack good public transportation systems, but just come to the Northeast and look at the infrastructure that used to maintain the factories.
Living in the city once defined the American way of life. Sadly, we've lost this way of life and sense of community with the old cities' distinct neighborhoods. It seems to be returning with reurbanization, however more people need to realize the benefits and not just think that city life is only about high rise apartments.
If you're interested in this topic, I recommend you read Ray Suarez's book The Old Neighborhood: What We Lost in the Great Suburban Migration, 1966-1999. City life isn't as bad as most people make it out to be and I happen to think that it is superior to the disconnected feel of suburban living.
All of this stuff about fuel cells is really nice for the future, but I see two much more simple ways to decrease dependence on foreign oil. First of all, why don't people drive diesel cars like they do in Europe? Diesel is not only more efficient, but most diesel technology is actually cleaner than gasoline. It also doesn't depend on a complete paradigm shift.
Secondly, why don't more people move back to city and thus not need cars as much? Before electric trolley cars used to be in place of buses. People could walk to work because of how close things used to be. American society has become too suburbanized and this is one of the biggest problems with regards to the fuel problem. Don't complain about fuel problems when you live 25 miles from your job and can't take the train!
You don't even have to buy a Star Wars product to know most of the storylines in the Star Wars universe. So long as you have an Internet connection, you can read the Star Wars Databank.
Ford would probably sue you because you decided to modify your Focus for speed. Are people ever going to learn that everyday drivers are not muscle, sport, and race cars? With regard to this subject, I think an obligatory link to Maddox is necessary.
I completely agree. Ebay has a nearly perfect business model since all they have to do is make sure that their website is working and has enough bandwidth at all times. Although they do provide a buyer with some protection, PayPal helps out even more. The rest is left up to the consumer, who usually needs to practice commonsense anyway.
Ebay's low risk, low captial method got it to where it is today. Slashdot's overly cynical nature is unnecessay. Ebay works and its great.
Believe it or not, everyone that works for Microsoft isn't an evil person trying to crush the free software movement. The point of this article seems to be that a Microsoft employee recognizes Firefox's superiority. If this guy is able to admit openly on a Microsoft website that he doesn't even use IE, maybe developers should listen to him. Sure, making a Longhorn only version is not the solution. GNOME should investigate these features to see if they are worth trying to duplicate. Ideas shouldn't be cynically disregarded just because of where they originated.
If the Mozilla developers feel that cross platform is most important (which I feel is most important), they should just consider what these suggestions mean and maybe make them design objectives if they are at all possible.