And client side code. The Web 2.0 and Security 2.0 where we have a generation of "web programmers" who have to learn all of the security lessons from scratch. Hmmm, I wonder when we'll see the first viruses.
Your customers tell you all about themselves, voluntarily and for free.
Contrary to most geek's ideas, marketing is bloody difficult. It's actually very expensive, very hard work. You're essentially trying to model human society. That's why they'll pay you to answer questions.
Is that on the terminal you are typing it may appear that the characters are deleted, but they may not actually have been removed from the application you are typing into; email, irc, whatever. And the full text with ^H symbols and original incorrect text might be sent to the recipient. Things like you are a cun^H^H^Hnice person could easily be sent on incorrectly configured systems.
You reduce income and sales taxes in concert. Businesses and individuals have more money to spend, how they do it is up to them, but there's all that energy to pay for, or they can invest in ways of reducing their energy usage.
Audio:
Full multimedia jukebox; MP3 shuffle mode with a mood classifier. Choose the mood you're in, or want and it'll find & play appropriate music, with effects.
Video:
Auto-record tv shows I might like continuously into free space, based on a classification of the title, description, actors, director etc.
Basically, a bit of intelligence on the part of the software. There are a bunch of geek features which frankly don't care about, like watching shows over a network. Tivo is liked because it's incredibly easy.
People in hot areas will start adding insulation, whitewashing their houses, adding trees and ivy people in cold areas will start adding insulation, heat pumps etc.
Are sociopaths or psychopaths, on average, so if you fuck over around 150 people, there will be on average something like 6 of them who would quite happily take revenge literally without any consideration of the consequences and without conscience.
RFJason is making the same mistake his victims made, he thinks he's somewhat anonymous, but there's no such thing, especially if he's used an identity for quite a while. Someone will find out where he lives, who his friends are. That's karma for you.
Or, you can sit back, fat and happy and allow the guys at the top, the ones with the sociopathic personalities and pathological need to win, to decide how you're going to live.
The first past the post, winner take all, either/or system it's inevitable that it will fall to a two party election. There's no way to increase the numbers of parties (and therefore the representation) without first reforming the electoral system to a more proportional model.
No, the rails are a natural monopoly. And it certainly does carry a large percentage of journeys. Are you actually familiar with NYC and our subways? We're talking millions of riders per day. And in Manhattan especially, other than feet (no subsidy or services, beyond sidewalks - another government "natural monopoly"), there's no better way. All those other vehicles are worse in every way, for everyone but the rider.
I agreed with you on the rails being a natural monopoly if taken out of the wider context of other modes of transport. I'm not particularly familiar with the NYC subway, but am intimately familiar with the London Underground which provides a similar service for a similarly sized population. I think you'll find that the ridership of neither is representative of rail services state or country wide.
Look if the alternatives are worse in every way, then people will continue to choose the subway over the alternatives whether subsidised or not.
But of course we also tried privatized buses, which still compete badly with city buses. Not economically, but service quality.
As I said, it's extremely difficult to compete against someone who's subsidised. They can be cheaper, hire more staff to provide a better service and still charge less money. The result being that the commercial service, starved of cash provides a poorer and poorer service, eventually fails.
Transit competition and monopolies in many forms have been tested in NYC. Government monopoly wins.
Inevitably in terms of cost for the ridership certainly. Transport investment though will inevitably stagnate, alternatives will be excluded and tax payers will pay hundreds per year to subsidise a service they rarely use.
It isn't a monopoly, it doesn't even carry a particularly large percentage of journeys, around 10% usually. Sure if you take it out of context and look at it without comparison to the other forms of transport which exist it is a natural monopoly. In reality there are viable alternatives which mean it isn't a monopoly situation.
Alternatives include buses, taxis, trams, private automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, prt and feet. Subsidising rail simply reduces the investment the competition will make in their services and makes change to a better more optimal system less likely. Subsidising rail actually reduces the diversity of transport alternatives because the competitors can't compete.
Robot vehicles which run on normal road will be subject to the same performance problems of cars. They will have to stop for traffic lights, intersections and will be stopped by traffic congestion meaning the average speed is dreadful, a substantial investment in upgrading roads with no performance benefit. Plus the complexity of the road network means that sophisticated AI which doesnt exist yet would be required to handle unforseen events.
You are quite correct that there is a substantial infrastructure investment required but it's a fraction of the cost of a road, a tiny fraction of rail and we can do it today.
"but transport of this type benefits from the economy of scale and is more energy efficient. "
Only with high occupancy, close to 100% full. That only happens during peak periods. During other times the costs and inefficiency of accelerating and decelerating a large heavy and nearly empty vehicle are substantial, never mind the environmental cost of the rail infrastructure. Because of this the schedule has to be set to minimise the losses outwith peak periods, making the system even less desirable. And in any case, Ultra in particular is more efficient than LRT even during peak periods, it's easily more efficient than the buses.
The system we're talking about is electric and driverless so your comment about the cars doesn't really apply.
The destination is also the same for all passengers, so the problem of stopping every now and then to pick up and set down passengers along the way (and this slow the trip down) doesn't really exist.
This is only stage one. Subsequent stages will add another 500 pods and will connect all of the terminals and all of the car parks. There are 14 car parks and 5 terminals. In addition there are several set down and pickup points within each car park. The car parks at Heathrow are large and a group mover would exhibit the set down/pick up performance problem.
This kind of system could so much more efficiently use our rail capacity in our gridlocked city that we should pour $BILLIONS into bringing it online.
I disagree. I agree that the system(or one based on the same principles) could as you say make more efficient use of the rail space and make a huge difference to traffic congestion. But... It should be privately financed, it's one of the few public transport systems which can be profitable.
Almost all existing forms of public transport are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, 50% or so is common. Ironically this makes new transport systems like Ultra or Taxi2000 more difficult to implement. The key is less subsidy, not more. Sell off the rail system, including rails, stations and make it pay for itself. Ultimately this is going to mean a roll out of a PRT like system by the private sector, either in direct competition with rail or by the rail companies replacing traditional rail, and it'll be done faster, cheaper and more efficiently than a government would.
This particular system can move 4800 people per hour. Monorail which would fit in the same space can only handle a fraction of that and is far more expensive to boot. When a pod breaks down half way to the car park the remaining pods can re-route through one of the other lines. What do you do when a monorail breaks down?
Slashdot Mirror
And client side code. The Web 2.0 and Security 2.0 where we have a generation of "web programmers" who have to learn all of the security lessons from scratch. Hmmm, I wonder when we'll see the first viruses.
education != intelligence
I mean at least the Chinese are mostly killing their own citizens. What is it now? 3,400 Iraqi's a month? All for the oil rights.
Ah, I see that you have no idea what marketing is. What you did was advertising, not marketing.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but Wikipedia, as worthy as it is, won't help you get laid.
Your customers tell you all about themselves, voluntarily and for free.
Contrary to most geek's ideas, marketing is bloody difficult. It's actually very expensive, very hard work. You're essentially trying to model human society. That's why they'll pay you to answer questions.
Is that on the terminal you are typing it may appear that the characters are deleted, but they may not actually have been removed from the application you are typing into; email, irc, whatever. And the full text with ^H symbols and original incorrect text might be sent to the recipient. Things like you are a cun^H^H^Hnice person could easily be sent on incorrectly configured systems.
You reduce income and sales taxes in concert. Businesses and individuals have more money to spend, how they do it is up to them, but there's all that energy to pay for, or they can invest in ways of reducing their energy usage.
A full multimedia centre:
Audio:
Full multimedia jukebox; MP3 shuffle mode with a mood classifier. Choose the mood you're in, or want and it'll find & play appropriate music, with effects.
Video:
Auto-record tv shows I might like continuously into free space, based on a classification of the title, description, actors, director etc.
Basically, a bit of intelligence on the part of the software. There are a bunch of geek features which frankly don't care about, like watching shows over a network. Tivo is liked because it's incredibly easy.
What're your customers going to do?
Make energy expensive.
http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2195
People in hot areas will start adding insulation, whitewashing their houses, adding trees and ivy people in cold areas will start adding insulation, heat pumps etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Take your pick. Google is your friend: http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Are sociopaths or psychopaths, on average, so if you fuck over around 150 people, there will be on average something like 6 of them who would quite happily take revenge literally without any consideration of the consequences and without conscience.
RFJason is making the same mistake his victims made, he thinks he's somewhat anonymous, but there's no such thing, especially if he's used an identity for quite a while. Someone will find out where he lives, who his friends are. That's karma for you.
Funnily enough you're wrong. Join a party which supports electoral reform, then get out and acively campaign with them.
If it doesn't serve you, change it.
Or, you can sit back, fat and happy and allow the guys at the top, the ones with the sociopathic personalities and pathological need to win, to decide how you're going to live.
The first past the post, winner take all, either/or system it's inevitable that it will fall to a two party election. There's no way to increase the numbers of parties (and therefore the representation) without first reforming the electoral system to a more proportional model.
I agreed with you on the rails being a natural monopoly if taken out of the wider context of other modes of transport. I'm not particularly familiar with the NYC subway, but am intimately familiar with the London Underground which provides a similar service for a similarly sized population. I think you'll find that the ridership of neither is representative of rail services state or country wide.
Look if the alternatives are worse in every way, then people will continue to choose the subway over the alternatives whether subsidised or not.
As I said, it's extremely difficult to compete against someone who's subsidised. They can be cheaper, hire more staff to provide a better service and still charge less money. The result being that the commercial service, starved of cash provides a poorer and poorer service, eventually fails.
Inevitably in terms of cost for the ridership certainly. Transport investment though will inevitably stagnate, alternatives will be excluded and tax payers will pay hundreds per year to subsidise a service they rarely use.
If you live in a "safe" seat, your vote is probably irrelevant. There are relatively few seats which can flip back and forth.
There is a better way of course but you're unlikely to see it in your lifetime.
It isn't a monopoly, it doesn't even carry a particularly large percentage of journeys, around 10% usually. Sure if you take it out of context and look at it without comparison to the other forms of transport which exist it is a natural monopoly. In reality there are viable alternatives which mean it isn't a monopoly situation.
Alternatives include buses, taxis, trams, private automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, prt and feet. Subsidising rail simply reduces the investment the competition will make in their services and makes change to a better more optimal system less likely. Subsidising rail actually reduces the diversity of transport alternatives because the competitors can't compete.
Robot vehicles which run on normal road will be subject to the same performance problems of cars. They will have to stop for traffic lights, intersections and will be stopped by traffic congestion meaning the average speed is dreadful, a substantial investment in upgrading roads with no performance benefit. Plus the complexity of the road network means that sophisticated AI which doesnt exist yet would be required to handle unforseen events.
You are quite correct that there is a substantial infrastructure investment required but it's a fraction of the cost of a road, a tiny fraction of rail and we can do it today.
Only with high occupancy, close to 100% full. That only happens during peak periods. During other times the costs and inefficiency of accelerating and decelerating a large heavy and nearly empty vehicle are substantial, never mind the environmental cost of the rail infrastructure. Because of this the schedule has to be set to minimise the losses outwith peak periods, making the system even less desirable. And in any case, Ultra in particular is more efficient than LRT even during peak periods, it's easily more efficient than the buses.
The system we're talking about is electric and driverless so your comment about the cars doesn't really apply.
This is only stage one. Subsequent stages will add another 500 pods and will connect all of the terminals and all of the car parks. There are 14 car parks and 5 terminals. In addition there are several set down and pickup points within each car park. The car parks at Heathrow are large and a group mover would exhibit the set down/pick up performance problem.
I disagree. I agree that the system(or one based on the same principles) could as you say make more efficient use of the rail space and make a huge difference to traffic congestion. But... It should be privately financed, it's one of the few public transport systems which can be profitable.
Almost all existing forms of public transport are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, 50% or so is common. Ironically this makes new transport systems like Ultra or Taxi2000 more difficult to implement. The key is less subsidy, not more. Sell off the rail system, including rails, stations and make it pay for itself. Ultimately this is going to mean a roll out of a PRT like system by the private sector, either in direct competition with rail or by the rail companies replacing traditional rail, and it'll be done faster, cheaper and more efficiently than a government would.
This particular system can move 4800 people per hour. Monorail which would fit in the same space can only handle a fraction of that and is far more expensive to boot. When a pod breaks down half way to the car park the remaining pods can re-route through one of the other lines. What do you do when a monorail breaks down?
You get on any pod and your ticket tells the pod where you want to go. Simple.