Hey I was just making a joke about the weather in Canada. I have heard both good and bad about your health care system. The thing is that it is your health care system and not mine. I don't have to live with it, use it, or pay for it. It is your country and I feel that Canadians need to work out what is best for Canada.
I know I hate it when people on other countries try to say what the US should or shouldn't do so as I said it is all up to you. But that being said it is just too freaking cold for me there.
Naples I don't know if they do enough business to make worth while. As I said I mostly agree but Miami/Orlando/Tampa seems the best route to start with. It really bypasses me but it is about the only route in Florida I think has a chance right now to be profitable. Honestly when doing business in any of those cites right now I drive. Flying was always to expensive and I don't know if a train would work with all the stuff I would have to take. I would be willing to give it a try. The only in state flight I ever took was to Tallahassee but the State paid for that one.
If you are going from city center to city center it will take you more than an extra hour on each end to get to and from the airport. I think you may still be ahead. Now how long it takes to get to and from the Boston terminal... I know not.
1. I was talking about high speed rail not light rail. 2. I did mention Houston/Dallas as a place it could work well. You are a correct that maybe Houston, Dallas, Austin , San Antonio would be a route as well. I don't think Waco is big enough for high speed rail. I am not sure that there is enough traffic between Brownsville or El Paso but I could be wrong on that one. For high speed rail to be a good solution you need, moderate distance and high traffic. So Houston/Dallas just screams for HSR. Not only that but it is pretty flat, and low population between the two.
Please go all the way up to my original post. "There are only a few places in the US I can see it working. The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe."
I think you are over estimating traffic between some cities and under estimating the cost of build the lines. I do agree that in some places high speed rail may work well and I listed them in my orginal post. But it can not replace air travel in the US. It will be at best a supplement. It may take a few cars off the road for some travel but I honestly don't see intercity travel as that big of a problem in the US. The real problem I see is suburb to city travel and the sprawl issues in places like southern California, Atlanta, and Boston.
It will not be fast enough for the distances I used to travel. South Florida to Portland OR. Figure 3000 miles for that trip. Even if the train was none stop and averaged 150 mph that would take 20 hours. By jet 7 hours. South Florida to Las Vegas. 2500 miles or 16 hours by jet five hours. Chicago Ill 1300+ miles or around 9 hours by train. That is getting better but a jet will still be faster. I have taken every one of these trips for business. One of them would have been more practical on a trail. Even if the the train cost one half the price of the flight.
Expansion of rail service isn't as easy as air service. Any town that has an airport can have air service in one day. It will take years to lay the track and billions of dollars. Then what about lines that don't pan out. The cost of track is fixed. With an airline you just fly fewer flights. High speed rail can work but only in some limited locations. I doubt that I will see high speed rail service in my life time to cities like Toledo OH, Columbus OH and a lot of other smaller cities that I have had to fly into.
You also have the distance problem. When I used to travel a lot a train never would have been an option. The distances where all too great for rail or I doubt that the train would have gone to where I needed to go. The only a few places in the US I can see it working. The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe.
What??? "They're putting their asses on the line for our right to copy - may it be equal to everyone else's - end copyright now."
Okay so then you would be fine with me taking GPL code, making it into a binary, and loading it with DRM?
Copyright law protects GPL code the same as it protects movies and records.
They put there ass on the line to make MONEY. Pirates Bay sold ads and made money sparky.
You sir are an idiot of epic proportion to compare Pirate's Bay with the Civil Rights movement. I for one do not see any relationship between civil rights and the ability to download movies and music without paying for them.
True but most distros do the install for everyone. It is very possible to do an install in Linux just for you but most default package systems don't support it all that well.
Well I would think that most people that might install malware in Linux are not building from source. Running at app level would help prevent malware from getting hooks into the OS. It would also make it easier to remove the malware when found. Protecting data while letting it be shared is a much harder problem.
Well for malware it would prevent the malware from installing things like keyloggers. It would also make antivirus and antimalware programs more effective since they could run at a higher level.
I actually see a lot of multi user systems. Lots of families only have one PC. That PC is shared by the kids and parents. Protecting the OS means the OS can do a better job protecting you. Most malware doesn't wipe your data anymore. It steals it or it is used as mail relay or as a part of a bot net.
Except this isn't a Virus. It is a Trojan. Any OS can be infected with a Trojan even Linux. I find it anoying that under Linux most software really expects to be installed as root. Maybe there needs to be a new level called app for applications but then you have to problem of libraries.
Interesting but unproven isn't a slam. But one of the real benefits of methanol is that large commercial production is a well know and easy process. Algae fuel is still in the pilot project stage. But It should be investigated as well.
Methanol is not exotic stuff. Yea don't take a bath in it but it is used for freaking camping stoves right now. It has been used for decades as a fuel in racing cars in a number of classes and is mandatory in many because of it is so much safer than gas.
Apple only has a 2% market share so why does Microsoft care? Simple the only reason that Apple doesn't make a Cheap Mac that is the same price as HP or Dell is they don't want to. I don't own a Mac. But I have to wonder just how much cheaper a Dell or HP is to a none techie user. Throw in a few visits to the Geek Squad and subscriptions for anti everything ware and I am not so sure that a Windows Box is cheaper in the long run. Microsoft is just so opening themselves up with this. MicroSoft: Sure Macs may be a better than a Windows box but not at the price they charge. Apple: And now for just one more thing. The new eMacBook for $699 and eMacTower $499.
The problem with ethanol is that it isn't useful in fuel cells. Plus it isn't easy to make from cellulose. I am not a fan of the idea of one solution. It is the lack of interest in methanol that gets me. As to the hazard to human safety. Don't drink it is the trick. It isn't much worse than gas right now. It is much safer from a fire hazard point of view than gas is. Algae as a fuel is interesting but unproven. As I said it is the total lack of interest in methanol that I don't approve of. But then I think Hydrogen is a waste of effort unless you are going to fuse it.
Methanol can be made from cellulose it is called wood alcohol for a reason. Right now it is often made from coal or natural gas but it can be made from none food plants. You still have the problem with recharging time and range. Hydrogen fuel cells are a waste. Methanol may actually hold a lot of promise. Of course you can just burn it like gas as well.
I am glad he did on nuclear. Not so happy about "clean coal" but we will see. What I don't understand is why there seems to be so little interest in methanol fuel cells. methanol has a much higher energy density than hydrogen. You can make it from saw dust, and is liquid at room temperature. It is slightly toxic but no worse than gasoline is. Seems like it should have a lot of potential. Oh and you can make it from natural gas, coal, and air and water if you have enough extra energy sitting around.
Well for one thing a lot of businesses don't have private jets. Second you do realize that for a lot of users a new PC adds zero value? Or that even XP adds zero value to a lot of users. To give you an example at my company. The people that do the shipping. They need email, access to the accounting system, access to the CMS, and the Web to track packages. Every one of those programs will run just fine on Windows 2000 and none of them require a lot of CPU, memory, or mass storage locally. That type of use is typical in a large company. W2k really is good enough. We have upgraded to XP long ago because we pass down machines from the support staff to clerical since support do tend to need more up to date machines. W2K is fast and does what a lot of users need it to do. Why spend the money to upgrade just to upgrade? Frankly a lot of older machines where better built than the new machines and will do the job just fine. You keep them until they die or you get a benefit to upgrading. Microsoft is ending support for old OSs so they can sell new ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey I was just making a joke about the weather in Canada.
I have heard both good and bad about your health care system. The thing is that it is your health care system and not mine. I don't have to live with it, use it, or pay for it.
It is your country and I feel that Canadians need to work out what is best for Canada.
I know I hate it when people on other countries try to say what the US should or shouldn't do so as I said it is all up to you.
But that being said it is just too freaking cold for me there.
On Slashdot it is impossible to post a joke that nobody will take seriously.
Naples I don't know if they do enough business to make worth while. As I said I mostly agree but Miami/Orlando/Tampa seems the best route to start with. It really bypasses me but it is about the only route in Florida I think has a chance right now to be profitable.
Honestly when doing business in any of those cites right now I drive. Flying was always to expensive and I don't know if a train would work with all the stuff I would have to take. I would be willing to give it a try.
The only in state flight I ever took was to Tallahassee but the State paid for that one.
If you are going from city center to city center it will take you more than an extra hour on each end to get to and from the airport.
I think you may still be ahead. Now how long it takes to get to and from the Boston terminal... I know not.
I think you have some issues. :)
And no Canadians are not stuck in the stone age. Only an idiot would think that.
You guys are stuck in the ice age
1. I was talking about high speed rail not light rail.
2. I did mention Houston/Dallas as a place it could work well. You are a correct that maybe Houston, Dallas, Austin , San Antonio would be a route as well. I don't think Waco is big enough for high speed rail. I am not sure that there is enough traffic between Brownsville or El Paso but I could be wrong on that one.
For high speed rail to be a good solution you need, moderate distance and high traffic. So Houston/Dallas just screams for HSR. Not only that but it is pretty flat, and low population between the two.
Please go all the way up to my original post.
"There are only a few places in the US I can see it working.
The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe."
I think you are over estimating traffic between some cities and under estimating the cost of build the lines.
I do agree that in some places high speed rail may work well and I listed them in my orginal post.
But it can not replace air travel in the US. It will be at best a supplement. It may take a few cars off the road for some travel but I honestly don't see intercity travel as that big of a problem in the US. The real problem I see is suburb to city travel and the sprawl issues in places like southern California, Atlanta, and Boston.
It will not be fast enough for the distances I used to travel.
South Florida to Portland OR. Figure 3000 miles for that trip. Even if the train was none stop and averaged 150 mph that would take 20 hours. By jet 7 hours.
South Florida to Las Vegas. 2500 miles or 16 hours by jet five hours.
Chicago Ill 1300+ miles or around 9 hours by train. That is getting better but a jet will still be faster.
I have taken every one of these trips for business. One of them would have been more practical on a trail. Even if the the train cost one half the price of the flight.
Expansion of rail service isn't as easy as air service.
Any town that has an airport can have air service in one day.
It will take years to lay the track and billions of dollars.
Then what about lines that don't pan out. The cost of track is fixed. With an airline you just fly fewer flights.
High speed rail can work but only in some limited locations.
I doubt that I will see high speed rail service in my life time to cities like Toledo OH, Columbus OH and a lot of other smaller cities that I have had to fly into.
Yep but most users never build from source. And those that do are unlikely to install malware by mistake.
You also have the distance problem.
When I used to travel a lot a train never would have been an option. The distances where all too great for rail or I doubt that the train would have gone to where I needed to go.
The only a few places in the US I can see it working.
The North East corridor. Boston/New York/Philly/DC, San Diego/LA/SF and maybe up to Portland and Seattle, Dallas/Houston, and maybe Miami up to Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa and that is a big maybe.
What???
"They're putting their asses on the line for our right to copy - may it be equal to everyone else's - end copyright now."
Okay so then you would be fine with me taking GPL code, making it into a binary, and loading it with DRM?
Copyright law protects GPL code the same as it protects movies and records.
They put there ass on the line to make MONEY. Pirates Bay sold ads and made money sparky.
You sir are an idiot of epic proportion to compare Pirate's Bay with the Civil Rights movement.
I for one do not see any relationship between civil rights and the ability to download movies and music without paying for them.
True but most distros do the install for everyone.
It is very possible to do an install in Linux just for you but most default package systems don't support it all that well.
Well I would think that most people that might install malware in Linux are not building from source.
Running at app level would help prevent malware from getting hooks into the OS. It would also make it easier to remove the malware when found.
Protecting data while letting it be shared is a much harder problem.
Well for malware it would prevent the malware from installing things like keyloggers. It would also make antivirus and antimalware programs more effective since they could run at a higher level.
I actually see a lot of multi user systems. Lots of families only have one PC. That PC is shared by the kids and parents.
Protecting the OS means the OS can do a better job protecting you. Most malware doesn't wipe your data anymore. It steals it or it is used as mail relay or as a part of a bot net.
Except this isn't a Virus. It is a Trojan.
Any OS can be infected with a Trojan even Linux.
I find it anoying that under Linux most software really expects to be installed as root.
Maybe there needs to be a new level called app for applications but then you have to problem of libraries.
The military as well. They use them to slow bombs dropped at low altitude.
Now one at hypersonic speeds will be challenging.
Interesting but unproven isn't a slam.
But one of the real benefits of methanol is that large commercial production is a well know and easy process.
Algae fuel is still in the pilot project stage.
But It should be investigated as well.
Methanol is not exotic stuff. Yea don't take a bath in it but it is used for freaking camping stoves right now. It has been used for decades as a fuel in racing cars in a number of classes and is mandatory in many because of it is so much safer than gas.
Apple only has a 2% market share so why does Microsoft care?
Simple the only reason that Apple doesn't make a Cheap Mac that is the same price as HP or Dell is they don't want to.
I don't own a Mac. But I have to wonder just how much cheaper a Dell or HP is to a none techie user. Throw in a few visits to the Geek Squad and subscriptions for anti everything ware and I am not so sure that a Windows Box is cheaper in the long run.
Microsoft is just so opening themselves up with this.
MicroSoft: Sure Macs may be a better than a Windows box but not at the price they charge.
Apple: And now for just one more thing. The new eMacBook for $699 and eMacTower $499.
The problem with ethanol is that it isn't useful in fuel cells. Plus it isn't easy to make from cellulose.
I am not a fan of the idea of one solution. It is the lack of interest in methanol that gets me.
As to the hazard to human safety. Don't drink it is the trick. It isn't much worse than gas right now. It is much safer from a fire hazard point of view than gas is.
Algae as a fuel is interesting but unproven.
As I said it is the total lack of interest in methanol that I don't approve of. But then I think Hydrogen is a waste of effort unless you are going to fuse it.
Methanol can be made from cellulose it is called wood alcohol for a reason. Right now it is often made from coal or natural gas but it can be made from none food plants.
You still have the problem with recharging time and range. Hydrogen fuel cells are a waste. Methanol may actually hold a lot of promise.
Of course you can just burn it like gas as well.
I am glad he did on nuclear. Not so happy about "clean coal" but we will see.
What I don't understand is why there seems to be so little interest in methanol fuel cells.
methanol has a much higher energy density than hydrogen. You can make it from saw dust, and is liquid at room temperature.
It is slightly toxic but no worse than gasoline is.
Seems like it should have a lot of potential.
Oh and you can make it from natural gas, coal, and air and water if you have enough extra energy sitting around.
They should move to Linux then.
At least you can have a modern OS and browser then.
Well for one thing a lot of businesses don't have private jets.
Second you do realize that for a lot of users a new PC adds zero value? Or that even XP adds zero value to a lot of users.
To give you an example at my company. The people that do the shipping.
They need email, access to the accounting system, access to the CMS, and the Web to track packages.
Every one of those programs will run just fine on Windows 2000 and none of them require a lot of CPU, memory, or mass storage locally.
That type of use is typical in a large company. W2k really is good enough. We have upgraded to XP long ago because we pass down machines from the support staff to clerical since support do tend to need more up to date machines.
W2K is fast and does what a lot of users need it to do. Why spend the money to upgrade just to upgrade?
Frankly a lot of older machines where better built than the new machines and will do the job just fine. You keep them until they die or you get a benefit to upgrading. Microsoft is ending support for old OSs so they can sell new ones.
Funny but I was thinking the same about thing OpenVMS and what about the Z/OS for the ZSeries?