For a start the car needs to be full to get to that point, it also needs to be a fairly new and efficient model - and old clunker or a hummer are just not going to cut the mustard there. I'm also not sure that the article cited above has considered the multi-purpose nature of many trains (carrying mail, cargo and passengers for instance)
You should also take into account infrastructure costs for roads, parking, the maintenance of individual cars and so on, parking cops, towing, speed cameras, enforcement, medical cost for injuries sustained (cars are sttistically very dangerous), blah blah blah.
In short, I don't think a discussion on slashdot will ever conclusively prove x has a lower TCO than y, but the suggestion of ditching public transport altogether in favour of private cars disturbs me, somehow.
(You may need to upgrade your English parser to make sense of that sentence).
nah, got it after about the third run-through(!)
I'll happily admit having an inverse situation to many - I live pretty much in the middle of the city and commute out in the morning. So I get a very rosy view.
I've done it the other way in the past though, and worse, I've lived in London(shudder). Now there's a place with overcrowded public transport.
Guess it depends on your town, but my situation (Sydney NSW) is pretty good, public transport-wise. We've got decent train service (if a bit downtrodden), pretty good buses (if you're not anal-retentive over exact timetables), light rail (from just near my house into the main station) and best of all the ferry network, which is amazingly enjoyable on a summer morning on the way to work. We've even got a monorail, though it's of limited utility to everyine except tourists.
No on-bus broadband yet, but the light rail has several open APs along its length.
If your town's public transport sucks, get vocal about it. If you don't, it'll just atrophy as more people take their gas guzzlers to work
Mass transit is definitely NOT more convenient than a car.
For you, maybe. For me, I think I'm better of without one. depends on where you live, where you work, where your friends live, your lifestyle, local climate, blah blah blah. Everyone's making sweeping generalisations based on their own situations here (inluding me)
Public transportation is more convenient and cheaper.
This is very true, as long as where you're heading is serviced by public transport, without and excessive number of changes.
I work about 15kms outside the middle of Sydney (North Ryde). Luckily, I live within a short walk of the main bus terminal in the Centre (QVB). If I lived in the Eastern Suburbs somewhere, I'd have to catch a train or bus in, then my usual bus out again, which is frankly a pain, and quite time consuming. None of my immediate colleagues use PT for this very reason. It's painful for them, so they drive (and incidentally bitch about the traffic). I don't think it occurs to the two who live close to each other to carpool, but that's another story.
Now cycling, that's different. It's a good ride on a decent day, takes roughly an hour for me, which is only 15 mins more than the walk/bus combo. It's more environmentally sound than Public Transport, you've as much freedom of destination as with a car, and your health is miraculously improved (though your chances of being maimed by traffic are probably higher). The initial investment is only a couple of hundred bucks, if you're not a gadget freak like me and end up spending way too much on titanium bits.
Of course if more people used PT, then PT could service more areas, this is obvious, but as things stand public transport is only a partial solution (and I'm an advocate of it)
... 2795 spams in my GMail, to which I redirect three or four other addresses. Last delete was on Dec 1st (logically).
So I get roughly 100 spams per day, of which gmail will let one, maybe two through every fifth day or so. pretty good. I now use my gmail account pretty much exclusively.
Thinking back, my spam volumes appear to have gone UP since CAN-SPAM went into effect. As for my work address, 3 a day or so, but we run a lot of spam filtering here, and I don't have access to the figures blocked. I've certainly not seen any marked effect of recent legislation on the amount of crap I get in my inbox.
Having driven on the German Autobahn in a somewhat underpowered Volkswagen, I'm more inclined to believe the safer record of Autobahns is because a significant portion of the driving population is just scared crapless to go on them(!)
I found being passed by BMW M3s at nearly twice my speed was a little unnerving, and I'm a confident driver.
You're referring to the K-T Boundary event between the Cretaceous and Tertiary, which indeed was the 'Dinosaur' event, and more likely a large meteorite than a comet
I recall reading recently (New Scientist?) that the current crewing levels are barely enough for ongoing maintenance, never mind space science, which for the most part doesn't require a big-ass expensive clunky space station anyway. A lot of zero-g work can be done far more easily, aside from long-term studies, of course.
I think in part the whole project was a mixture of diplomatic goodwill and make-work for a floundering industry sector, with a healthy helping of publicity banner thrown in. As far as I'm aware, the ISS has contributed nothing of note scientifically, and far less than it ought to have in terms of technological/engineering breakthroughs, though I'd welcome any infirmation that either confirms or denies this baseless accusation.
I suppose it's better than nothing, but there are (could be) far better science platforms than a manned space station. Look what the HST did, for instance.
slashdot premium subscribers. they lightly toast the server before we plebs get there, so our early article folk cry "slashdotted", but the server gets a second wind, until the plebs arrive in force.
science can go way further back in terms of biology than the point religion claims. As for physics/cosmology, yes there is a point neither can explain - i.e. what caused the whole thing to go off in the first place.
Unfortunately for your point, the biological version is subordinate to the physical - we can both agree on an unknown first cause in the realm of physics, but by doing so we shore up the secular argument in the biological realm - by competing on a level playing field with the old "what about the universe" thing, you've acknowledged the very mechanisms I cited in my post as being explainable and provable.
Ask me again in a sober part of the year, and I'll even cite references. It is, after all, the northern hemisphere's midwinter festival about now (commonly known as christmas)
... then perhaps numerous small, semi-autonomous departments will be able to pull it into their part of the enterprise without too much disruption.
Is it going to be able to do that? That would be a great way of gaining a toehold. For instance my previous company (before I joined a rather prominent big-ass software company) would have really benefitted from being able to put a few desktops onto Linux with good Exchange integration - RPC connections, y'know. server-based rules and all that jazz.
Toehold. that's all it would have taken. As it is, my former company has one linux user. there could have been several.
Basically, any non accounting staff and non contract-tied staff could have benefitted, which would have been an important toehold/testbed for Free software (note capital) in our organisation. That would have been maybe 15-20% of our desks.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, from a pure cost point of view, cars have been cited as more efficient than trains but only if a number of conditions are fulfilled. Not buses, but many of the same factors will apply
For a start the car needs to be full to get to that point, it also needs to be a fairly new and efficient model - and old clunker or a hummer are just not going to cut the mustard there. I'm also not sure that the article cited above has considered the multi-purpose nature of many trains (carrying mail, cargo and passengers for instance)
You should also take into account infrastructure costs for roads, parking, the maintenance of individual cars and so on, parking cops, towing, speed cameras, enforcement, medical cost for injuries sustained (cars are sttistically very dangerous), blah blah blah.
In short, I don't think a discussion on slashdot will ever conclusively prove x has a lower TCO than y, but the suggestion of ditching public transport altogether in favour of private cars disturbs me, somehow.
But instead you paid them to rent it out for the weekend.
Your mechanics work over the weekend? All the mechanics I know price up to discourage that kind of behaviour.
(You may need to upgrade your English parser to make sense of that sentence).
nah, got it after about the third run-through(!)
I'll happily admit having an inverse situation to many - I live pretty much in the middle of the city and commute out in the morning. So I get a very rosy view.
I've done it the other way in the past though, and worse, I've lived in London(shudder). Now there's a place with overcrowded public transport.
Guess it depends on your town, but my situation (Sydney NSW) is pretty good, public transport-wise. We've got decent train service (if a bit downtrodden), pretty good buses (if you're not anal-retentive over exact timetables), light rail (from just near my house into the main station) and best of all the ferry network, which is amazingly enjoyable on a summer morning on the way to work. We've even got a monorail, though it's of limited utility to everyine except tourists.
No on-bus broadband yet, but the light rail has several open APs along its length.
If your town's public transport sucks, get vocal about it. If you don't, it'll just atrophy as more people take their gas guzzlers to work
> People have cars for privacy
Shame they're not actually all that private.
Think of all the people who act as if they are though (nose picking, singing along to bad tunes, shaving while driving etc... and worse)
Mass transit is definitely NOT more convenient than a car.
For you, maybe. For me, I think I'm better of without one. depends on where you live, where you work, where your friends live, your lifestyle, local climate, blah blah blah. Everyone's making sweeping generalisations based on their own situations here (inluding me)
Yes, it's certainly more convenient to take groceries, home electronics, etc. etc. home on the bus.
I take it you haven't discovered the unalloyed joy of home delivery yet?
If you can bag a job where you can work from home occasionally, there's really no other way to go.
> Public transportation is so ridiculously less convenient than a car that I can't believe anyone would say otherwise except in jest.
> And it's only cheaper if your time isn't worth anything.
you could always use your time on public transport productively. Got a laptop? Read Books? listen to talking books, even?
You can get some decent research time on a middle-to-long bus ride. Try reading a study guide while driving and see where that gets you.
Public transportation is more convenient and cheaper.
This is very true, as long as where you're heading is serviced by public transport, without and excessive number of changes.
I work about 15kms outside the middle of Sydney (North Ryde). Luckily, I live within a short walk of the main bus terminal in the Centre (QVB). If I lived in the Eastern Suburbs somewhere, I'd have to catch a train or bus in, then my usual bus out again, which is frankly a pain, and quite time consuming. None of my immediate colleagues use PT for this very reason. It's painful for them, so they drive (and incidentally bitch about the traffic). I don't think it occurs to the two who live close to each other to carpool, but that's another story.
Now cycling, that's different. It's a good ride on a decent day, takes roughly an hour for me, which is only 15 mins more than the walk/bus combo. It's more environmentally sound than Public Transport, you've as much freedom of destination as with a car, and your health is miraculously improved (though your chances of being maimed by traffic are probably higher). The initial investment is only a couple of hundred bucks, if you're not a gadget freak like me and end up spending way too much on titanium bits.
Of course if more people used PT, then PT could service more areas, this is obvious, but as things stand public transport is only a partial solution (and I'm an advocate of it)
... 2795 spams in my GMail, to which I redirect three or four other addresses. Last delete was on Dec 1st (logically).
So I get roughly 100 spams per day, of which gmail will let one, maybe two through every fifth day or so. pretty good. I now use my gmail account pretty much exclusively.
Thinking back, my spam volumes appear to have gone UP since CAN-SPAM went into effect. As for my work address, 3 a day or so, but we run a lot of spam filtering here, and I don't have access to the figures blocked. I've certainly not seen any marked effect of recent legislation on the amount of crap I get in my inbox.
Having driven on the German Autobahn in a somewhat underpowered Volkswagen, I'm more inclined to believe the safer record of Autobahns is because a significant portion of the driving population is just scared crapless to go on them(!)
I found being passed by BMW M3s at nearly twice my speed was a little unnerving, and I'm a confident driver.
You're referring to the K-T Boundary event between the Cretaceous and Tertiary, which indeed was the 'Dinosaur' event, and more likely a large meteorite than a comet
However, the Permian Mass Extinction was bigger by far.
I think it's a total waste of my tax money.
Except that the article says it'll be privately funded, and I quote
"an awesome $175 billion over 50 years, financed mostly if not entirely with private money."
So that's why you lot are sticking with miles when almost everyone else uses kilometres. It's a revenue stream.
We think 110 is a nice cruising speed for the freeway.
They were planning on studying the effects of starvation in space, but the Russians managed to screw up the experiment.
Well, they already did some great research on the Effects Of Weightlessness On Mortal Terror, which is a pretty good result. Don't play them down so much!
> no, that wouldnt be many miles considering that they dont travel too far.
That depends how long they're up there. ISS is not geostationary.
I recall reading recently (New Scientist?) that the current crewing levels are barely enough for ongoing maintenance, never mind space science, which for the most part doesn't require a big-ass expensive clunky space station anyway. A lot of zero-g work can be done far more easily, aside from long-term studies, of course.
I think in part the whole project was a mixture of diplomatic goodwill and make-work for a floundering industry sector, with a healthy helping of publicity banner thrown in. As far as I'm aware, the ISS has contributed nothing of note scientifically, and far less than it ought to have in terms of technological/engineering breakthroughs, though I'd welcome any infirmation that either confirms or denies this baseless accusation.
I suppose it's better than nothing, but there are (could be) far better science platforms than a manned space station. Look what the HST did, for instance.
damn straight!
you know what it is?
slashdot premium subscribers. they lightly toast the server before we plebs get there, so our early article folk cry "slashdotted", but the server gets a second wind, until the plebs arrive in force.
insightful, or just drunk? you decide!
... description mentions "the sinclair". What, the Sinclair C5? ZX81? Spectrum? or one of the later, uprated spectrums (spectra?)
slashdotted already?
umm... duh?
well, perhaps incredibly slow. it's only a matter of time. Happily I spotted Zoids, which I really liked as a young-un.
... Gimmicky 'guy' games are a no-no, and sequels (HL2, Halo2, Doom3) rock
I thank you. for future summaries, please drop me some paypal cash to....
I think you missed it.
science can go way further back in terms of biology than the point religion claims. As for physics/cosmology, yes there is a point neither can explain - i.e. what caused the whole thing to go off in the first place.
Unfortunately for your point, the biological version is subordinate to the physical - we can both agree on an unknown first cause in the realm of physics, but by doing so we shore up the secular argument in the biological realm - by competing on a level playing field with the old "what about the universe" thing, you've acknowledged the very mechanisms I cited in my post as being explainable and provable.
Ask me again in a sober part of the year, and I'll even cite references. It is, after all, the northern hemisphere's midwinter festival about now (commonly known as christmas)
SO you're saying adapt-or-die is AOL's new path?
can't we just have the second part?
... then perhaps numerous small, semi-autonomous departments will be able to pull it into their part of the enterprise without too much disruption.
Is it going to be able to do that? That would be a great way of gaining a toehold. For instance my previous company (before I joined a rather prominent big-ass software company) would have really benefitted from being able to put a few desktops onto Linux with good Exchange integration - RPC connections, y'know. server-based rules and all that jazz.
Toehold. that's all it would have taken. As it is, my former company has one linux user. there could have been several.
Basically, any non accounting staff and non contract-tied staff could have benefitted, which would have been an important toehold/testbed for Free software (note capital) in our organisation. That would have been maybe 15-20% of our desks.
Toehold!