Here's what happens when I want to fly Southwest from Dallas to Tampa.
Due to Wright Amendment restrictions we do not offer scheduled service between Dallas Love - DAL and Tampa - TPA. You may purchase an itinerary for travel between Dallas Love - DAL and Tampa - TPA by:
Purchasing two separate one-way or roundtrip itineraries involving an intermediate city.
NOTE: Southwest Airlines requires at least 45 minutes between arrival at the first destination point and the departure to the second destination.
Flights that originate in Texas can't terminate in a non-contiguous state.
I can't buy a ticket from DFW to Tampa. I have to buy a ticket to some intermediate state, and buy another ticket to Tampa. Most other airlines are allowed to bundle this into one "flight", but Southwest is not.
Oh, but I did just learn something! Not only can I fly to all the states contiguous with Texas, but I get Alabama too! Wheeee!
"in the airlines case, you have to call their core busines "transportation" rather than "Air transportation""
True statement. But I can count the number of corporations that actually do this on the finger of one, uh, finger. Corporations protect the status quo.
The airline has no incentive to dump money (and it would take bookoo money, which they don't have, except for Southwest, which has a little money, since they actually know how to run an airline, but they're teeny, because American doesn't like real competition) into a 30 year money pit, which seems optimistic indeed on ROI.
I hope (in my pretty little fantasy world head) that rail travel catches on in Texas. The light rail system connecting the suburbs to downtown is just starrting to get big enough to be useful, and people are getting in the habit of using it (which is awesome.) It might happen, but I'll wager we get to Mars first.
I should have put this in my first reply, but I was too quick on the button.
The reason Southwest (one of the few profitable airlines left in America) has trouble flying outside Texas, is because they're not allowed to. When DFW was built, the City of Ft. Worth managed to lobby Congress (that's the US Congress, mind you) to close down Love Field (in Dallas). Southwest managed to get Love to stay open, but only if they agreed to not fly to any state that's not adjacent to Texas. As long as American (for whatever reason) commands more legislative attention than (more profitable) Southwest, this will not change.
Well, I've never seen a bear in my suburban region, and I don't know why an apartment building that houses 1000 people is somehow less of a problem than a home that houses 4. So I'm not totally sure where you're going there.
A plague on this land? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much land there is, in Texas alone, that have zero people living on it? I read once that we could give every family in the WORLD a 1 acre lot in Texas alone. (Of course, there isn't that much arable land in this BLASTED WASTELAND) Don't tell me that we're taking up too much space.
Natural resourcees? There's a good argument to be made there. But room? Come on.
It is a good idea, and it's very likely that it will be among Boeing's design possibilities for their next large aircraft. However, the next Boeing jet is the 7E7, which is designed for economy rather than capacity.
Boeing decided that, since the 747 is almost as big and very nearly as efficient as the new Airbus, they didn't want to try to compete in that large aircraft market right now. Time will tell if this was a smart strategy or not.
BWB is a great design, but it's not without drawbacks. One concern is how it's going to feel to Grandma when she moves downwards 12 feet when the wing dips. It will be important for pilots to make coordinated turns, so that the passengers won't get woozy as the aircraft banks (since the passengers sit so farr off the roll axis of the plane). Designing new jetways will also be a challenge.
It's a great design, but not without its drawbacks.
I agree with you in principle, that large-scale transport won't be going hypersonic. Ballistic vehicles make much more sense (although they might initially freak people out). That's never going to be cheap, though.
Having said that, there's no reason that a hypersonic aircraft couldn't ride just as smoothly as a conventional airliner.
Uh, yeah, because airliners and oil companies love to invest in new technologies that could take away from their core business. There are numerous historical examples of this phenomenon.
Oh, wait, this thing in my mouth is a CRACK PIPE. My bad.
Actually, there is a strong movement towards smaller, more efficient jets to supplement the hub and spoke airliner infrastructure here in America. But the new Airbus A380 is going to be as big as anybody (who doesn't want to build new airports) is likely to need in the next several years.
OK, I guess you're right and I'm wrong. Nobody who can't edit the source code to make the computer do whatever they want to should have any expectation of a decent user interface. Because that's, like, expressive.
To a good approximation, nobody has pressure sensitive tablets. Those that do use programs that support them. There is no advantage in having that be a general-purpose user interface device. If you want some sort of haptic interface dick-sleeve to work with the program, well sure: it'll have to be built into the back end. (huh huh. Pun intended.) But, for the 99% of computer users out there who understand the WIMP paradigm, they will be well served by scaleable, customizeable user interfaces.
4, 5, and 6 button mice work just fine. Bind the buttons to keystrokes. But, those interfaces aren't ideal for all users, and would be best customized to the individual user's preferences. (see what I'm getting at here?)
Re: your comment on the suitability of my ADB mouse to Linux, I can't think of anything less relevant to the discussion of scaleable user interfaces. Linux has horrible user interface across the board. It is not the benchmark.
Re: your last point, you make my argument for me. Objects (or menu controls or widgets or physical UI elements) may not make sense for all systems, but users might like to be able to bolt them on to suit their own needs.
So. My original point stands. Scaleable, customizeable user interfaces (with a decent interface to the customization features, of course. Don't know why you thought I was talking about modifying the source code) provides more users with more utility. Neophytes get an easy to use tool, and experts get a flexible, customizeable tool that works the way they want it to.
So, essentially you just hand the user a bag of bricks?
No, you hand the user a well-constructed interface that works fine out of the box, and is also customizeable by somebody who knows what they are doing.
Why would you have to write different back-end code to have a different user interface? Although there are a variety of things about Linux that I don't like, the abstraction between the program and the front-end that you see in a lot of projects is a good thing. That's not to say that there's ever been a good user interface on any Linux system *dons flame-resistant footie pajamas*, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
Assuming that the designer knows how to do good UI design, of course. Unfortunately, nobody does. Don't worry. I'm working on it.
And, re: the mouse, I have had a Kensington four-button mouse on my Macintosh sinde 1994, and I really like it a lot. I can bind the buttons to do different things in different apps according to a scheme I design. I think it's superb.
However, I would never, ever turn a neophyte user loose on that sort of system. It's confusing and intimidating, and unnecessary. As far as being a "Windows-ism", I don't know what that means. A good idea is a good idea. That doesn't mean, of course that the good idea is good for all people for all times.
Me, I'd like Sci Fi channel a lot better if they actually showed science fiction, instead of Scare Tactics and John Edwards and all that crap.
Yeah, they picked up Andromeda. That's good. How about a good time slot for Babylon 5? What about Space: Above and Beyond? And Firefly? Or any of the dozen or so decent sci fi shows that died on other channels.
How do you figure any of these components cost significantly less to manufacture than they used to?
It costs about the same to manufacture an 8gb hard drive as an 80 gb hard drive. That's why the computer industry keeps their prices relatively constant for given market segments, but continue to upgrade performance.
As a fun exercise, go look at prices for new 72 pin SIMMS. They cost a LOT.
The fact that they are commercial doesn't bother me. They make money by providing a superior product, and I think that's just fine. I like to encourage that sort of corporate citizenship.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what happens when I want to fly Southwest from Dallas to Tampa.
Flights that originate in Texas can't terminate in a non-contiguous state.
I can't buy a ticket from DFW to Tampa. I have to buy a ticket to some intermediate state, and buy another ticket to Tampa. Most other airlines are allowed to bundle this into one "flight", but Southwest is not.
Oh, but I did just learn something! Not only can I fly to all the states contiguous with Texas, but I get Alabama too! Wheeee!
"in the airlines case, you have to call their core busines "transportation" rather than "Air transportation""
True statement. But I can count the number of corporations that actually do this on the finger of one, uh, finger. Corporations protect the status quo.
The airline has no incentive to dump money (and it would take bookoo money, which they don't have, except for Southwest, which has a little money, since they actually know how to run an airline, but they're teeny, because American doesn't like real competition) into a 30 year money pit, which seems optimistic indeed on ROI.
I hope (in my pretty little fantasy world head) that rail travel catches on in Texas. The light rail system connecting the suburbs to downtown is just starrting to get big enough to be useful, and people are getting in the habit of using it (which is awesome.) It might happen, but I'll wager we get to Mars first.
1) No. You insensitive clod.
2) All the jobs I've had in the past were not in "downtown".
3) I want to see your measurements. I think you're full of shit.
I should have put this in my first reply, but I was too quick on the button.
The reason Southwest (one of the few profitable airlines left in America) has trouble flying outside Texas, is because they're not allowed to. When DFW was built, the City of Ft. Worth managed to lobby Congress (that's the US Congress, mind you) to close down Love Field (in Dallas). Southwest managed to get Love to stay open, but only if they agreed to not fly to any state that's not adjacent to Texas. As long as American (for whatever reason) commands more legislative attention than (more profitable) Southwest, this will not change.
So much for laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree.
The airlines do not.
They own more legislators than I do.
Well, I've never seen a bear in my suburban region, and I don't know why an apartment building that houses 1000 people is somehow less of a problem than a home that houses 4. So I'm not totally sure where you're going there.
A plague on this land? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how much land there is, in Texas alone, that have zero people living on it? I read once that we could give every family in the WORLD a 1 acre lot in Texas alone. (Of course, there isn't that much arable land in this BLASTED WASTELAND) Don't tell me that we're taking up too much space.
Natural resourcees? There's a good argument to be made there. But room? Come on.
It is a good idea, and it's very likely that it will be among Boeing's design possibilities for their next large aircraft. However, the next Boeing jet is the 7E7, which is designed for economy rather than capacity.
Boeing decided that, since the 747 is almost as big and very nearly as efficient as the new Airbus, they didn't want to try to compete in that large aircraft market right now. Time will tell if this was a smart strategy or not.
BWB is a great design, but it's not without drawbacks. One concern is how it's going to feel to Grandma when she moves downwards 12 feet when the wing dips. It will be important for pilots to make coordinated turns, so that the passengers won't get woozy as the aircraft banks (since the passengers sit so farr off the roll axis of the plane). Designing new jetways will also be a challenge.
It's a great design, but not without its drawbacks.
Your lack of spelling ability and historical example undermine your argument.
I agree with you in principle, that large-scale transport won't be going hypersonic. Ballistic vehicles make much more sense (although they might initially freak people out). That's never going to be cheap, though.
Having said that, there's no reason that a hypersonic aircraft couldn't ride just as smoothly as a conventional airliner.
Uh, yeah, because airliners and oil companies love to invest in new technologies that could take away from their core business. There are numerous historical examples of this phenomenon.
Oh, wait, this thing in my mouth is a CRACK PIPE. My bad.
How big do you want 'em?
Actually, there is a strong movement towards smaller, more efficient jets to supplement the hub and spoke airliner infrastructure here in America. But the new Airbus A380 is going to be as big as anybody (who doesn't want to build new airports) is likely to need in the next several years.
Move to Texas. Try your strategy. Let me know how it works out for you.
I like having a yard. Lots of people agree with me. That means, suburbs.
I can see the appeal of urban living too, but some people just don't care for it. Fortunately, there is room enough for both of us to be happy.
There was a proposal to do a high-speed rail system connecting Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston (with service to Austin as well on the Dallas-SA leg).
But as long as Continental, American, and Southwest are based here, that will never, ever happen. Unfortunately.
You're a mechanical engineer, and you don't understand that air travel is safer than train travel?
Mmmmmmkay.
Why would it be illegal for me to built a tracking device I put on my property?
Sure, you could do illegal things with it, but I can do illegal things with a screwdriver. Or my penis. Or both. Simultaneously.
OK, I guess you're right and I'm wrong. Nobody who can't edit the source code to make the computer do whatever they want to should have any expectation of a decent user interface. Because that's, like, expressive.
My bad, dude.
To a good approximation, nobody has pressure sensitive tablets. Those that do use programs that support them. There is no advantage in having that be a general-purpose user interface device. If you want some sort of haptic interface dick-sleeve to work with the program, well sure: it'll have to be built into the back end. (huh huh. Pun intended.) But, for the 99% of computer users out there who understand the WIMP paradigm, they will be well served by scaleable, customizeable user interfaces.
4, 5, and 6 button mice work just fine. Bind the buttons to keystrokes. But, those interfaces aren't ideal for all users, and would be best customized to the individual user's preferences. (see what I'm getting at here?)
Re: your comment on the suitability of my ADB mouse to Linux, I can't think of anything less relevant to the discussion of scaleable user interfaces. Linux has horrible user interface across the board. It is not the benchmark.
Re: your last point, you make my argument for me. Objects (or menu controls or widgets or physical UI elements) may not make sense for all systems, but users might like to be able to bolt them on to suit their own needs.
So. My original point stands. Scaleable, customizeable user interfaces (with a decent interface to the customization features, of course. Don't know why you thought I was talking about modifying the source code) provides more users with more utility. Neophytes get an easy to use tool, and experts get a flexible, customizeable tool that works the way they want it to.
What's the matter with that?
So, essentially you just hand the user a bag of bricks?
No, you hand the user a well-constructed interface that works fine out of the box, and is also customizeable by somebody who knows what they are doing.
Why would you have to write different back-end code to have a different user interface? Although there are a variety of things about Linux that I don't like, the abstraction between the program and the front-end that you see in a lot of projects is a good thing. That's not to say that there's ever been a good user interface on any Linux system *dons flame-resistant footie pajamas*, but it's a good idea nonetheless.
Assuming that the designer knows how to do good UI design, of course. Unfortunately, nobody does. Don't worry. I'm working on it.
And, re: the mouse, I have had a Kensington four-button mouse on my Macintosh sinde 1994, and I really like it a lot. I can bind the buttons to do different things in different apps according to a scheme I design. I think it's superb.
However, I would never, ever turn a neophyte user loose on that sort of system. It's confusing and intimidating, and unnecessary. As far as being a "Windows-ism", I don't know what that means. A good idea is a good idea. That doesn't mean, of course that the good idea is good for all people for all times.
Er, that's a good reason to have docs in hypertext.
And the poster is right on. You set the user interface according to the preferences, and the abilities, of the user.
The perfect interface for the novice and for the computer expert are not the same. Apple's one-button mouse is the perfect example.
Hence my assertion that the channels themselves are irrelevant.
Me, I'd like Sci Fi channel a lot better if they actually showed science fiction, instead of Scare Tactics and John Edwards and all that crap.
Yeah, they picked up Andromeda. That's good. How about a good time slot for Babylon 5? What about Space: Above and Beyond? And Firefly? Or any of the dozen or so decent sci fi shows that died on other channels.
How do you figure any of these components cost significantly less to manufacture than they used to?
It costs about the same to manufacture an 8gb hard drive as an 80 gb hard drive. That's why the computer industry keeps their prices relatively constant for given market segments, but continue to upgrade performance.
As a fun exercise, go look at prices for new 72 pin SIMMS. They cost a LOT.
The fact that they are commercial doesn't bother me. They make money by providing a superior product, and I think that's just fine. I like to encourage that sort of corporate citizenship.
Apparently, Strong Bad has that problem.
Left side WOOOOAAAAAHHH.