Taxis have all sorts of regulations, most of them are for the good of society, such things as: - maximum prices - accountable billing practices - enhanced driver licensing requirements - vehicle inspections - hours of service regulations - insurance requirements
But then governments went overboard and also added regulations that do not help society at all such as: - minimum prices - limits to the number of taxis
The end result is that while most people applaud the items in the first list, the abhor the regulations in the second list. That list is why society as a whole is screaming for "ride-sharing" services to come in to their cities. That's why everyone is willing to pretend that these aren't taxi services, it's to try to get around the ridiculousness of those excessive regulations that are hated by all but the taxi industry themselves.
Problem is, you end up "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". If governments had stuck to regulating the safety and price gouging aspects of taxis, without artificially constraining supply or forcing artificially high prices, there'd be no demand for "ride sharing" services.
Any smart government would start over, and regulate anyone carrying passengers for hire the same, without limiting who can do it, or setting a minimum price. You'd get as free a market as possible, while still ensuring everyone plays fair and safe. Uber would hate you, but they'd have a really tough time getting the public on their side if the local taxi industry was already competitive (which they'd have to be if there were no limit on the number of taxi licenses).
Where I live, it's easy, there are only 2 airlines, check both and you know you have the highest rate that the lack of competition will allow. (in reality they are always dollar for dollar identical on all routes anyway)
Now if you're flying overseas, there's actual competition and it might be worth checking, but domestically, check one of the 2 airlines and you know the price.
Our government keeps blocking any effort by other airlines to enter our market and provide competition.
Maybe your company is willing to do that, but I've never found a single hotel willing to discount their price to match the online prices for the same hotel. End result, hotel gives me the lower price, AND they pay the commission to the site I found the lower price through. I offer them the option to save the commission, no hotel has ever taken me up on it.
For hotels that has been my experience as well, I've never had a hotel price match the online rate, they'd rather give me a lower price AND pay the commission, than just give me the lower price.
Airlines on the other hand, I've never managed to find a third party price lower than the price straight from the airline, so I've pretty much given up booking airfares through any third party site.
Simple fix. Don't allow their website access to geo-location, and don't connect to the in-store Wi-Fi.
The worse one I find is that every store seems to have a different SKU for the identical product from the same manufacturer. So when you try any price matching they tell you that they can't match the price because it's a "different item"
A new SKU is exactly what Walmart wants. but customers don't even know what a SKU is. If you don't give it a new sub-brand, you still have exactly the same problem. And if you DO give it a new sub-brand, you now have to figure out why Walmart would want that one vs the even cheaper chinese knock-off as your sub-brand doesn't have the carefully curated reputation of your old brand.
The difference is that when I order stuff from amazon it shows up 80% of the time, and gets refunded the other 20%. When I order stuff from AliExpress it shows up 20% of the time, and refunds are almost impossible if it doesn't.
Alternatively, the walmart bucket lasts you 5 years, and the Home Depot bucket lasts you 6 due to it's superior construction. Your math suddenly changes.
Or what if the walmart one lasts 50 years, and the home depot one will last 75, do you even care at that point?
"cheaper quality" isn't always a bad thing, it's only bad if the difference in quality actually affects you in a negative way more than the cost difference between the 2 does.
We could engineer a bucket that would last 1000 years. But why would anyone pay for it when they know they won't be using the bucket more than 50 years from now?
Maybe because real scientists WANT people to find the problems with it?
If there are problems with the data, it's better if people find the problems, than that they get swept under the rug and new laws are passed based on faulty data.
43" 4K TV $379.99 (by the way, 43" was actually the smallest TV I could find at the major electronics retailer) 43" 4K Monitor $999.99 (same store, 2 aisles over) Both of these are the cheapest I could find, average for the 43" TVs was about $430, Most of the 4K monitors were much smaller but even the 30" ones were $999.99 - $1749.99
yeah... no wonder people buy TVs instead of monitors!
Well that makes those TVs perfectly safe around here, because it's been at least 10 years since I've met someone who used the tuner function of their TV. If you're lucky, you'll pick up 3 stations over the air, and if you're using cable of any form you're using their box fed in to your HDMI or Component connections.
I don't think the Spanish government sees it that way. They worry that if the approve Scotland's inclusion in the EU, it will be interpreted as telling people it's ok to separate from your country, a precedent they don't want heard in Catalonia.
Unfortunately there's a good chance that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join the EU, and not because it wouldn't be a good idea, but because humans are petty creatures. Of course that's also why Britain is leaving....
Exactly this. I think the ISPs would be smart enough to realize that if they make this sale, it'll be the last one they ever make. You'd have to provide enough money to cover every future sale they could have made if the government hadn't cracked down.
That said, when the ISPs refuse to sell this info, the politicians will be able to shout that there's no need for the law because the industry does a great job at self regulating, all the while ignoring the fact that they only self regulated to avoid outraging the same senators they bought and paid for earlier.
Tunnels under runways are nothing new, many airports have them already, and they are still being built to this day. Even so, there's not necessarily a need for them as you can bring roads in at the points of the triangle.
And yet, they didn't see fit to expand beyond the trial.... I wonder if maybe there was a reason for that?
I'm all for "new ideas", but "we've tried it before and it didn't work" really is a valid reason not to do it again, it doesn't just mean you're being "too negative"
The distance issue is addressed by placing the terminals in the centre of the circle. That's really not a big issue. The bigger issues are surrounding the curvature and banking.
And as you point out in your last sentence, the n-gon arrangements have all the advantages, with none of the disadvantages, and you don't really have to go that far. many airports already use triangular layouts, and that's really "good enough" to account for wind direction from anywhere, the only advantage to going to more than 3 runways would be to increase capacity (3 runways guarantees one usable at a time, with up to 3 depending on wind, 6 would guarantee 2, but may still max out at 3 as half the runways may be too close to the angles of the other half)
Tunnels, already done at many airports around the world.
And no, a "train crossing" approach doesn't work well for this application as there is far too much risk involved (though there are a small handful of airports (mostly very minor ones) that employ a similar approach.)
This is already solved by many airports having a triangular runway pattern. This gives planes 6 different directions they can land, or take off, which pretty much guarantees that one of them will be "close enough" to pointing in to the wind.
Basically the triangular runway pattern solves almost all the same problems as the circular runway, while having none of the disadvantages.
Triangular runway formats have been around forever, they have almost all the advantages of the circular runway, with none of the disadvantages.
The one point that is made that does make a lot of sense though is putting the terminal in the middle of the triangle, something rarely done. You could have the access roads at the points of the triangle, or as tunnels (not impossible, many runways have tunnels under them already)
Done right, it would decrease the average distance planes need to taxi (saving time), while requiring less land overall.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxis have all sorts of regulations, most of them are for the good of society, such things as:
- maximum prices
- accountable billing practices
- enhanced driver licensing requirements
- vehicle inspections
- hours of service regulations
- insurance requirements
But then governments went overboard and also added regulations that do not help society at all such as:
- minimum prices
- limits to the number of taxis
The end result is that while most people applaud the items in the first list, the abhor the regulations in the second list. That list is why society as a whole is screaming for "ride-sharing" services to come in to their cities. That's why everyone is willing to pretend that these aren't taxi services, it's to try to get around the ridiculousness of those excessive regulations that are hated by all but the taxi industry themselves.
Problem is, you end up "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". If governments had stuck to regulating the safety and price gouging aspects of taxis, without artificially constraining supply or forcing artificially high prices, there'd be no demand for "ride sharing" services.
Any smart government would start over, and regulate anyone carrying passengers for hire the same, without limiting who can do it, or setting a minimum price. You'd get as free a market as possible, while still ensuring everyone plays fair and safe. Uber would hate you, but they'd have a really tough time getting the public on their side if the local taxi industry was already competitive (which they'd have to be if there were no limit on the number of taxi licenses).
Where I live, it's easy, there are only 2 airlines, check both and you know you have the highest rate that the lack of competition will allow. (in reality they are always dollar for dollar identical on all routes anyway)
Now if you're flying overseas, there's actual competition and it might be worth checking, but domestically, check one of the 2 airlines and you know the price.
Our government keeps blocking any effort by other airlines to enter our market and provide competition.
Maybe your company is willing to do that, but I've never found a single hotel willing to discount their price to match the online prices for the same hotel. End result, hotel gives me the lower price, AND they pay the commission to the site I found the lower price through. I offer them the option to save the commission, no hotel has ever taken me up on it.
For hotels that has been my experience as well, I've never had a hotel price match the online rate, they'd rather give me a lower price AND pay the commission, than just give me the lower price.
Airlines on the other hand, I've never managed to find a third party price lower than the price straight from the airline, so I've pretty much given up booking airfares through any third party site.
Simple fix. Don't allow their website access to geo-location, and don't connect to the in-store Wi-Fi.
The worse one I find is that every store seems to have a different SKU for the identical product from the same manufacturer. So when you try any price matching they tell you that they can't match the price because it's a "different item"
A new SKU is exactly what Walmart wants. but customers don't even know what a SKU is. If you don't give it a new sub-brand, you still have exactly the same problem. And if you DO give it a new sub-brand, you now have to figure out why Walmart would want that one vs the even cheaper chinese knock-off as your sub-brand doesn't have the carefully curated reputation of your old brand.
The part that shocks me is that humans are still placing items in boxes. That just seems ripe for automation.
The difference is that when I order stuff from amazon it shows up 80% of the time, and gets refunded the other 20%. When I order stuff from AliExpress it shows up 20% of the time, and refunds are almost impossible if it doesn't.
Because e.bay costs 2-3 times as much as either walmart or amazon?
Meanwhile of my last 5 Amazon purchases, 2 never arrived at all, and the other 3 took over 5 weeks each.
At least at Walmart I can just go to the store and get it.
Alternatively, the walmart bucket lasts you 5 years, and the Home Depot bucket lasts you 6 due to it's superior construction. Your math suddenly changes.
Or what if the walmart one lasts 50 years, and the home depot one will last 75, do you even care at that point?
"cheaper quality" isn't always a bad thing, it's only bad if the difference in quality actually affects you in a negative way more than the cost difference between the 2 does.
We could engineer a bucket that would last 1000 years. But why would anyone pay for it when they know they won't be using the bucket more than 50 years from now?
Maybe because real scientists WANT people to find the problems with it?
If there are problems with the data, it's better if people find the problems, than that they get swept under the rug and new laws are passed based on faulty data.
Of course there's nothing saying that you need to connect it to the internet (or in this case to broadcast TV signals)
43" 4K TV $379.99 (by the way, 43" was actually the smallest TV I could find at the major electronics retailer)
43" 4K Monitor $999.99 (same store, 2 aisles over)
Both of these are the cheapest I could find, average for the 43" TVs was about $430, Most of the 4K monitors were much smaller but even the 30" ones were $999.99 - $1749.99
yeah... no wonder people buy TVs instead of monitors!
Well that makes those TVs perfectly safe around here, because it's been at least 10 years since I've met someone who used the tuner function of their TV. If you're lucky, you'll pick up 3 stations over the air, and if you're using cable of any form you're using their box fed in to your HDMI or Component connections.
I don't think the Spanish government sees it that way. They worry that if the approve Scotland's inclusion in the EU, it will be interpreted as telling people it's ok to separate from your country, a precedent they don't want heard in Catalonia.
Unfortunately there's a good chance that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join the EU, and not because it wouldn't be a good idea, but because humans are petty creatures. Of course that's also why Britain is leaving....
Exactly this. I think the ISPs would be smart enough to realize that if they make this sale, it'll be the last one they ever make. You'd have to provide enough money to cover every future sale they could have made if the government hadn't cracked down.
That said, when the ISPs refuse to sell this info, the politicians will be able to shout that there's no need for the law because the industry does a great job at self regulating, all the while ignoring the fact that they only self regulated to avoid outraging the same senators they bought and paid for earlier.
That's the only "major" one I could think of, and I'm surprised it hasn't been replaced by a tunnel to be honest.
Tunnels under runways are nothing new, many airports have them already, and they are still being built to this day. Even so, there's not necessarily a need for them as you can bring roads in at the points of the triangle.
And yet, they didn't see fit to expand beyond the trial.... I wonder if maybe there was a reason for that?
I'm all for "new ideas", but "we've tried it before and it didn't work" really is a valid reason not to do it again, it doesn't just mean you're being "too negative"
The distance issue is addressed by placing the terminals in the centre of the circle. That's really not a big issue.
The bigger issues are surrounding the curvature and banking.
And as you point out in your last sentence, the n-gon arrangements have all the advantages, with none of the disadvantages, and you don't really have to go that far. many airports already use triangular layouts, and that's really "good enough" to account for wind direction from anywhere, the only advantage to going to more than 3 runways would be to increase capacity (3 runways guarantees one usable at a time, with up to 3 depending on wind, 6 would guarantee 2, but may still max out at 3 as half the runways may be too close to the angles of the other half)
Tunnels, already done at many airports around the world.
And no, a "train crossing" approach doesn't work well for this application as there is far too much risk involved (though there are a small handful of airports (mostly very minor ones) that employ a similar approach.)
This is already solved by many airports having a triangular runway pattern. This gives planes 6 different directions they can land, or take off, which pretty much guarantees that one of them will be "close enough" to pointing in to the wind.
Basically the triangular runway pattern solves almost all the same problems as the circular runway, while having none of the disadvantages.
No, the plan is that it will magically eliminate all wind. Therefore no cross-winds, AND 3 planes can take off or land at the same time!
ummmmm... yeah....
Exactly.
Triangular runway formats have been around forever, they have almost all the advantages of the circular runway, with none of the disadvantages.
The one point that is made that does make a lot of sense though is putting the terminal in the middle of the triangle, something rarely done. You could have the access roads at the points of the triangle, or as tunnels (not impossible, many runways have tunnels under them already)
Done right, it would decrease the average distance planes need to taxi (saving time), while requiring less land overall.