Kinda, but not exactly. Many PDs (particularly university PDs with low crime rates and small jurisdictions) don't have to run around all day catching crims. So, when not seeking villains, the shift normally has a variety of other projects in which they invest their time.
Chances are that the "Threat Assessment Team" is a small group of normal officers that have gone through ~20 hours of class training and, on their normal shift, need to assessing potential threats at all times.
No, the problem is that the police didn't understand two things: (1) The the poster was a quote from a fictional "cowboys in space" TV series. (2) The poster didn't literally represent the intent or desire of the person who hung it.
The other problem is that the prof. was a drama queen with a department of employees that is trained to "hold the line" when faced with opposition. The best way to deal with police (EVERY time) is to be kind until you're blue in the face and then, if they still don't crumble,/then/ go to the media. Anything else and you look like a jerk. Moreover, this guy was actually a jerk about it.
They're university police. You obviously don't know what fascism is or don't actually care. Nor are they in the place to be authoritarians-- that's the job of the university administration which, on just about any university campus, directs the actions of the PD.
Yes, the cops should think before censoring people. No, they should not have taken down the poster before consulting the prof. No the prof. should not have been a drama queen about it all. The prof. is likely not an idiot, but he's handled this quite foolishly.
Because there are young geeks out there that still care about messing with betas and don't know everything about all the topics Slashdot *has* posted in the PAST.
When I was a first year undergrad, just getting to learn Slashdot, I remember reading about the beta (maybe alpha) here. I downloaded it, installed it, and followed every single beta release after that. I installed it on other peoples' computers. There were other beta programs announced and I tried those, too. I watched the BetaNews feed in hopes of finding ways to make my computer do more things. Anything!
That's part of the fun of blossoming into a computer geek.
Then we get older. And as older computer geeks, we have less patience for volunteering time for beta projects. We have figured out (for the most part) what we want from computers and figured out how to get it.
But there are still young geeks out there that will come to the established Slashdot to learn and be alerted to geek news. Firefox betas are geek news. It may be for the younger geeks now (the ones with more time and energy), but it's still, wholeheartedly, geek.
Meh... it's more of a list of embedded threads. A proper forum allows the full separation of threads to facilitate quoting and discussions. Think phpBB.
I read "Nickel and Dimed" in undergrad. I found it insightful. I had no idea it was so hated and/or feared by any establishment. I think I'll read it again since it's still on my book shelf.
I have a Facebook account... but only to keep in contact with a couple student organizations that don't understand the value of actual forums for discussion.
Professors get good money. There's no question about that. At the UC system, few educators go through their "merit and promotion" cycle without getting raises. Managers and administrators also get good money. It's a forgone conclusion for most to receive raises.
Why do they get raises? Because they constantly assert that the market rates for their expertises are so much higher than what they're being paid now. But I call BS on that. There is no such thing as a "market rate" unless these people actually get on the market. And if they find a place that pays more? Good-bye! We'll get a younger person not so entrenched in old, politically-fueled and dogmatic habits who will be utterly GLEEFUL to earn 3/4 his predecessor's wage.
I haven't read the document, but here's a questions for those who have:
Will the current document allow the practice of a provider putting a bandwidth cap on an account, but offering services immune to the cap?
An example would be the user having a set cap of 50 GB per month (limiting video consumption from sites like Netflix), but the user's provider offers their own streaming movie service that, when used, does not contribute to the consumption limit.
So few tech ideas have actually been implemented on a national scale. Why? Because it's really bloody difficult to account for EVERYTHING before it goes into the wild.
When a new federal law is introduced, it takes nearly a generation for the states and municipalities to figure out how implementation is going to work. All they get is a mandate from on high. (Because, the guys below will figure it out... they have to, right?)
I always bring this up when it comes to Universal Healthcare in the U.S.: Massachusetts has a type of UH, so let's make sure that system is locked down and make room for expansion or create a parallel system for a neighboring state. After 2 years of preparation, push UH live in that state. Once that state is locked down, use the experience gathered from State 01 (Mass. being State 00) to prepare 2 more neighboring states. Again, after 2 years of preparation, push it live.
Why go with neighboring states? Because neighboring state frequently have similar values, societies, habits, and problems. You learn as you go, correcting for errors as you slowly implement a massively important system appropriate for the areas.
The same should have happened with the NHS system. Start in a single, smaller city (100,000) and build an expensive, perfect system. Then spread it to the neighbors while learning more and more about cities further out. This way, if the system ever just falls out (as it has), you still have SOME product that's genuinely usable and the potential for future implementation with a future contractor.
Most PCs are set up with one account because almost all private things can be password protected. If you sign into Gmail from a PC, you have to enter a login and password. Not so with the stock Gmail program in Android. If you turn on Steam to download games, you can have to request a password-- not so much of a security feature with the Android store. The device always assumes that the main device owner is the device user. But that's not sufficient for tablets. Smartphones, yes. Tablets, less so.
And Outlook asks me to log in every time I start it. As does my computer. What I want is a multi-user environment on a device that is likely to be used by multiple users as a tablet it.
(Note: I don't see a tablet as a giant smart phone. I see it as a keyboard-less netbook.)
I never played with an Android device until I bought my Asus Transformer. When I set it up for the first time, I thought all the requests for my Google identity info were just to set up accounts, but it turned out that the tablet was just like the phone-- Google still treats it as a personal device.
While this isn't new to someone who knew Android well already, it came as quite a shock to me. After all, I planned to use my tablet like a netbook-- handing it off to other people who need to use it when I don't. I can't do that, though, because all someone has to do is hit that GMAIL icon and be automatically signed into my accounts. The same with the Android Store.
What Android needs for me to fully enjoy using it as well as for me to suggest it for other users is to provide the option to treat the device like a potentially public device as does Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. It should not be assumed that the primary owner always has control of the device. It should require loging in for any GMAIL user and the device should not be tied directly to a Google account identity.
I'll continue to use my Asus Transformer as is, but only until there's a tablet friendly of Ubuntu up and running... or maybe I'll stick with Android if such changes are made. But until then, I won't be buying another tablet as an upgrade and I will continue to stay out of the smartphone market.
I ignore the potential for this as a home server as most who have home servers recycle old parts/systems to make them.
Instead, I have to consider for whom this $200 computer would be made... and that is typically someone who doesn't already have a computer. That said, this is not a "computer" as most people know it.
There's no keyboard, no mouse, and no monitor. And without an optical drive, there's no ability to watch DVD movies, install software (questionable need with Ubuntu, though), or rip music CDs to MP3s. You may say, "But you can stream the movies you want from Netflix!" And you would be right... but if the person's in need of a $200 budget PC, would the person be paying for cable/dsl internet AND a Netflix subscription? Or would s/he be more immediately concerned with watching the DVDs on hand already?
It's all based on opinion and experience, yes, but my experience says that anyone who needs a budget PC needs the entire system, not just the tower. Instead of setting an artificial budget and then bending the rules, why not just make the best full system you can with as little money as possible? Because that would be useful. (Tom's Hardware does this from time to time.)
I hated when they brought "micro-transaction" to Everquest. I wouldn't mind paying a dollar here or 50 cents there... but they offered $10 items from day one... and the prices only went higher. Sure, there were deals, promotions, and the like, but I resented it.
And then I learned that the EQ engine is SO old and cobbled together that they would need extra revenue to justify the expense of creating newer prettier items. I began to accept it then, but would only actively participate in their micro-transaction system when there were charity drives.
They really could have suckered me into emptying out my wallet, in retrospect, had they just asked for less money.
It's true. I grew up ghetto poor and got my first modern computer in 2000 by means of an advance on a scholarship the summer before I went off to college. A kind neighbor ran some ethernet cable from his router next door to my window and told me "Read Slashdot. I'm pretty sure you'll like it" and that was it-- I found my community of, not-always-similarly-opined dedicated thinkers. People who just want to know and let others know.
I lost my 2000 UID when I stopped reading during my first year in college (you know how distracting it can be), but when I eventually recreated the account for the sake of posting I re-realized why Slashdot is great. I love posting my ideas and opinions here. I love sharing what I know. I love it when people feel confident enough to disagree tactfully and even more when people offer advice or help.
And it's all possible because you took a time to create a system where good conversation can be protected and advanced while bad conversation can be ignored.
It's a masterpiece of forum theory and I always refer to it at work, in casual conversation, and when asked about my experience with online communities.
They will not install it because they don't want to have to "support" it where "support" = keep up to date and answer questions. Of course, if I could just run it off my thumb drive, I would be able to keep it up to date on my own. As I have.
Yes. Their rationale is that they don't want to have to spend the time supporting (answering questions about and updating) another program which has such a small user-base. Of course, they said the same thing about Firefox and Thunderbird (both of which I was running that from a thumb drive for a quite a while) and now they're both supported programs.
Funny Bit: The supported campus email clients were Outlook and Eudora up until a couple years ago. Yes, EUDORA.
Also, I don't think that they would agree that part of the university's mission is to use "the least expensive program that fits the departments' requirements". I think they would argue that all the potential risk of using GIMP (I know, I know...) outweighs the monetary savings.
Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.
I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.
In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop./sigh
The article over simplifies the concepts of sustainable transportation and calorie consumption in the same ways thinly veiled "anti-green" articles attack more sustainable forms of energy production. In the energy debate, there are arguments against solar because of the lack of sun in Seattle, arguments against nuclear energy because of the waste that would be created if the entire world was put on nuclear power, and arguments against wind farms in natural wildlife reserves. They use worst-case scenarios to judge methods of alternative energy creation instead of how they would actually be implemented.
The same goes for sustainable transportation and this article. FTFA: "If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip." And that assumes I'm going to drink a milk. From a cow. After a warm walk. Who the hell drinks milk after getting sweaty? People drink water or have some fruit! Instead of postulating what the worst can be, why not survey people to find out what *actually* happens? Or worse-- why bother considering food at all?
Even in the "worst-case" scenario where everyone in the USA stopped driving private vehicles and just rode bikes and public transit as necessary, would we all focus on beef to make up for our additional caloric needs? And would it make such a massive hit to the environment when compared to to complete loss of people buying and driving their own cars? -- Not that I'm advocating such pie-in-the-sky thinking, but if you want to bring in cow-pollution, let's really compare it to the pollution from manufacturing, transporting, using, and disposing of cars. I can be disingenuous, too!
Lastly, focusing only on the mythical carbon footprint or GHG emissions of any mode of travel is BS science. It's only for "wow" and "fear" effect. You have weigh to the relative benefits of a mode for the passenger, operator, and third parties (cost, health, pollution, etc.), and the habits that may come along with regularly using a mode of transportation (lethargy and car driving for example). There are entire schools of study on sustainable transportation and summarizing it in a childish (trollish?) article is silly.
It's not about finding single a form of transportation that is a "winner"-- it's about finding a mode that is best for you, where you are now, where you need to be, and when you need to be there. Sometimes driving your truck alone on the road is sensible-- like when you're heading over to buddy to help him move. Other times, it's stupid-- like when you drive 3 blocks down the street to pick up some tic-tacs.
Regular Trips: Walking is suggested for round trips under two miles -- It helps keep the person healthy and burns no fossil fuels in the process. When you get home, don't raise 40 cows for slaughter. Bicycling is suggested for trips for round trips under 15 miles (fitness and competency varying) -- It helps to keep the person healthy and burns no fossil fuels in the process. See above comment about raising cows. Bus Transit is suggested for round trips under 15 miles or longer trips depending on availability-- It burns fossil fuels, but it's like a giant carpool. Train Transit is is suggested for round trips over 30 miles or longer trips depending on availability-- It burns fossil fuels (directly and/or indirectly), but it's like a giant carpool. Carpooling and Vanpooling is suggested for 20+ mile commutes -- It reduces the amount of pollution per user in areas where transit is not an option
Irregular Trips Carpool (see above) Passenger Jet - In a packed jet and for trips greater than 700 miles, you're actually doing pretty good when it comes to your share of greenhouse gases. The longer the trip, the better since the largest concentration of fuel burning comes at take-off.
While I understand that you mean the best, it's just not what I want. I specifically don't want web access. At the risk of being cliche, here's a car analogy:
Imagine you want a car with more cargo space than your 2-door commuter has and but still have sufficient power to zip around gleefully. The dealer says, "I know what you need- A Chevy Tahoe!..." --It has a massive engine for great acceleration --A HUGE rear cargo area --Fits 5 very fat people, 3 kids, and a dog. --The headrests are massive and you can install televisions in them and on the dash --There are 12 cup holders and 4 eating trays --And you can tow a boat!
But you don't want to tow a boat. You don't like boating. You don't want to ferry around fat people as a hobby. You don't want a massive SUV to clog up your garage or the streets. You don't want the extra expense or distraction that comes with being able to watch TV in the car. You don't want to consume all your meals in your car.
You want something small and focused. You want something that doesn't try to do everything "okay", but something that does the essentials very, very well.
Instead, you want a 4-door hatchback. It has the cargo space you need. It's zippy on the road because there's not much weight to it. It fits neatly in your garage. It gets over 30 miles to the gallon. It fits 4 adults comfortably. If you need to move house, you can rent a truck for a day.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda, but not exactly. Many PDs (particularly university PDs with low crime rates and small jurisdictions) don't have to run around all day catching crims. So, when not seeking villains, the shift normally has a variety of other projects in which they invest their time.
Chances are that the "Threat Assessment Team" is a small group of normal officers that have gone through ~20 hours of class training and, on their normal shift, need to assessing potential threats at all times.
No, the problem is that the police didn't understand two things:
(1) The the poster was a quote from a fictional "cowboys in space" TV series.
(2) The poster didn't literally represent the intent or desire of the person who hung it.
The other problem is that the prof. was a drama queen with a department of employees that is trained to "hold the line" when faced with opposition. The best way to deal with police (EVERY time) is to be kind until you're blue in the face and then, if they still don't crumble, /then/ go to the media. Anything else and you look like a jerk. Moreover, this guy was actually a jerk about it.
"He could have just replied. "I hung it up. It is just a movie poster and not a threat to anyone can I have it back?""
Ding ding ding! Winner!
They're university police. You obviously don't know what fascism is or don't actually care. Nor are they in the place to be authoritarians-- that's the job of the university administration which, on just about any university campus, directs the actions of the PD.
Yes, the cops should think before censoring people. No, they should not have taken down the poster before consulting the prof. No the prof. should not have been a drama queen about it all. The prof. is likely not an idiot, but he's handled this quite foolishly.
She's not a rent-a-cop or a mall-cop. She's the chief of an actual police department. Many universities have their own police department.
Because there are young geeks out there that still care about messing with betas and don't know everything about all the topics Slashdot *has* posted in the PAST.
When I was a first year undergrad, just getting to learn Slashdot, I remember reading about the beta (maybe alpha) here. I downloaded it, installed it, and followed every single beta release after that. I installed it on other peoples' computers. There were other beta programs announced and I tried those, too. I watched the BetaNews feed in hopes of finding ways to make my computer do more things. Anything!
That's part of the fun of blossoming into a computer geek.
Then we get older. And as older computer geeks, we have less patience for volunteering time for beta projects. We have figured out (for the most part) what we want from computers and figured out how to get it.
But there are still young geeks out there that will come to the established Slashdot to learn and be alerted to geek news. Firefox betas are geek news. It may be for the younger geeks now (the ones with more time and energy), but it's still, wholeheartedly, geek.
Meh... it's more of a list of embedded threads. A proper forum allows the full separation of threads to facilitate quoting and discussions. Think phpBB.
I read "Nickel and Dimed" in undergrad. I found it insightful. I had no idea it was so hated and/or feared by any establishment. I think I'll read it again since it's still on my book shelf.
I love librarians-- the rebellious rabble-rouses!
I have a Facebook account... but only to keep in contact with a couple student organizations that don't understand the value of actual forums for discussion.
Professors get good money. There's no question about that. At the UC system, few educators go through their "merit and promotion" cycle without getting raises. Managers and administrators also get good money. It's a forgone conclusion for most to receive raises.
Why do they get raises? Because they constantly assert that the market rates for their expertises are so much higher than what they're being paid now. But I call BS on that. There is no such thing as a "market rate" unless these people actually get on the market. And if they find a place that pays more? Good-bye! We'll get a younger person not so entrenched in old, politically-fueled and dogmatic habits who will be utterly GLEEFUL to earn 3/4 his predecessor's wage.
Me? Bitter? Nahhh...
I haven't read the document, but here's a questions for those who have:
Will the current document allow the practice of a provider putting a bandwidth cap on an account, but offering services immune to the cap?
An example would be the user having a set cap of 50 GB per month (limiting video consumption from sites like Netflix), but the user's provider offers their own streaming movie service that, when used, does not contribute to the consumption limit.
So few tech ideas have actually been implemented on a national scale. Why? Because it's really bloody difficult to account for EVERYTHING before it goes into the wild.
When a new federal law is introduced, it takes nearly a generation for the states and municipalities to figure out how implementation is going to work. All they get is a mandate from on high. (Because, the guys below will figure it out... they have to, right?)
I always bring this up when it comes to Universal Healthcare in the U.S.: Massachusetts has a type of UH, so let's make sure that system is locked down and make room for expansion or create a parallel system for a neighboring state. After 2 years of preparation, push UH live in that state. Once that state is locked down, use the experience gathered from State 01 (Mass. being State 00) to prepare 2 more neighboring states. Again, after 2 years of preparation, push it live.
Why go with neighboring states? Because neighboring state frequently have similar values, societies, habits, and problems. You learn as you go, correcting for errors as you slowly implement a massively important system appropriate for the areas.
The same should have happened with the NHS system. Start in a single, smaller city (100,000) and build an expensive, perfect system. Then spread it to the neighbors while learning more and more about cities further out. This way, if the system ever just falls out (as it has), you still have SOME product that's genuinely usable and the potential for future implementation with a future contractor.
Most PCs are set up with one account because almost all private things can be password protected. If you sign into Gmail from a PC, you have to enter a login and password. Not so with the stock Gmail program in Android. If you turn on Steam to download games, you can have to request a password-- not so much of a security feature with the Android store. The device always assumes that the main device owner is the device user. But that's not sufficient for tablets. Smartphones, yes. Tablets, less so.
And Outlook asks me to log in every time I start it. As does my computer. What I want is a multi-user environment on a device that is likely to be used by multiple users as a tablet it.
(Note: I don't see a tablet as a giant smart phone. I see it as a keyboard-less netbook.)
I never played with an Android device until I bought my Asus Transformer. When I set it up for the first time, I thought all the requests for my Google identity info were just to set up accounts, but it turned out that the tablet was just like the phone-- Google still treats it as a personal device.
While this isn't new to someone who knew Android well already, it came as quite a shock to me. After all, I planned to use my tablet like a netbook-- handing it off to other people who need to use it when I don't. I can't do that, though, because all someone has to do is hit that GMAIL icon and be automatically signed into my accounts. The same with the Android Store.
What Android needs for me to fully enjoy using it as well as for me to suggest it for other users is to provide the option to treat the device like a potentially public device as does Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. It should not be assumed that the primary owner always has control of the device. It should require loging in for any GMAIL user and the device should not be tied directly to a Google account identity.
I'll continue to use my Asus Transformer as is, but only until there's a tablet friendly of Ubuntu up and running... or maybe I'll stick with Android if such changes are made. But until then, I won't be buying another tablet as an upgrade and I will continue to stay out of the smartphone market.
I ignore the potential for this as a home server as most who have home servers recycle old parts/systems to make them.
Instead, I have to consider for whom this $200 computer would be made... and that is typically someone who doesn't already have a computer. That said, this is not a "computer" as most people know it.
There's no keyboard, no mouse, and no monitor. And without an optical drive, there's no ability to watch DVD movies, install software (questionable need with Ubuntu, though), or rip music CDs to MP3s. You may say, "But you can stream the movies you want from Netflix!" And you would be right... but if the person's in need of a $200 budget PC, would the person be paying for cable/dsl internet AND a Netflix subscription? Or would s/he be more immediately concerned with watching the DVDs on hand already?
It's all based on opinion and experience, yes, but my experience says that anyone who needs a budget PC needs the entire system, not just the tower. Instead of setting an artificial budget and then bending the rules, why not just make the best full system you can with as little money as possible? Because that would be useful. (Tom's Hardware does this from time to time.)
I hated when they brought "micro-transaction" to Everquest. I wouldn't mind paying a dollar here or 50 cents there... but they offered $10 items from day one... and the prices only went higher. Sure, there were deals, promotions, and the like, but I resented it.
And then I learned that the EQ engine is SO old and cobbled together that they would need extra revenue to justify the expense of creating newer prettier items. I began to accept it then, but would only actively participate in their micro-transaction system when there were charity drives.
They really could have suckered me into emptying out my wallet, in retrospect, had they just asked for less money.
It's true. I grew up ghetto poor and got my first modern computer in 2000 by means of an advance on a scholarship the summer before I went off to college. A kind neighbor ran some ethernet cable from his router next door to my window and told me "Read Slashdot. I'm pretty sure you'll like it" and that was it-- I found my community of, not-always-similarly-opined dedicated thinkers. People who just want to know and let others know.
I lost my 2000 UID when I stopped reading during my first year in college (you know how distracting it can be), but when I eventually recreated the account for the sake of posting I re-realized why Slashdot is great. I love posting my ideas and opinions here. I love sharing what I know. I love it when people feel confident enough to disagree tactfully and even more when people offer advice or help.
And it's all possible because you took a time to create a system where good conversation can be protected and advanced while bad conversation can be ignored.
It's a masterpiece of forum theory and I always refer to it at work, in casual conversation, and when asked about my experience with online communities.
Thank you.
Cannot be executed via command line nor double clicking.
Never thought of this, just tried it, no worky.
They will not install it because they don't want to have to "support" it where "support" = keep up to date and answer questions. Of course, if I could just run it off my thumb drive, I would be able to keep it up to date on my own. As I have.
They're not on the "campus network". They are on their department's network with separate policies.
Yes. Their rationale is that they don't want to have to spend the time supporting (answering questions about and updating) another program which has such a small user-base. Of course, they said the same thing about Firefox and Thunderbird (both of which I was running that from a thumb drive for a quite a while) and now they're both supported programs.
Funny Bit: The supported campus email clients were Outlook and Eudora up until a couple years ago. Yes, EUDORA.
Also, I don't think that they would agree that part of the university's mission is to use "the least expensive program that fits the departments' requirements". I think they would argue that all the potential risk of using GIMP (I know, I know...) outweighs the monetary savings.
Such is IT bureaucracy.
Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.
I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.
In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop. /sigh
The article over simplifies the concepts of sustainable transportation and calorie consumption in the same ways thinly veiled "anti-green" articles attack more sustainable forms of energy production. In the energy debate, there are arguments against solar because of the lack of sun in Seattle, arguments against nuclear energy because of the waste that would be created if the entire world was put on nuclear power, and arguments against wind farms in natural wildlife reserves. They use worst-case scenarios to judge methods of alternative energy creation instead of how they would actually be implemented.
The same goes for sustainable transportation and this article. FTFA: "If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip." And that assumes I'm going to drink a milk. From a cow. After a warm walk. Who the hell drinks milk after getting sweaty? People drink water or have some fruit! Instead of postulating what the worst can be, why not survey people to find out what *actually* happens? Or worse-- why bother considering food at all?
Even in the "worst-case" scenario where everyone in the USA stopped driving private vehicles and just rode bikes and public transit as necessary, would we all focus on beef to make up for our additional caloric needs? And would it make such a massive hit to the environment when compared to to complete loss of people buying and driving their own cars? -- Not that I'm advocating such pie-in-the-sky thinking, but if you want to bring in cow-pollution, let's really compare it to the pollution from manufacturing, transporting, using, and disposing of cars. I can be disingenuous, too!
Lastly, focusing only on the mythical carbon footprint or GHG emissions of any mode of travel is BS science. It's only for "wow" and "fear" effect. You have weigh to the relative benefits of a mode for the passenger, operator, and third parties (cost, health, pollution, etc.), and the habits that may come along with regularly using a mode of transportation (lethargy and car driving for example). There are entire schools of study on sustainable transportation and summarizing it in a childish (trollish?) article is silly.
It's not about finding single a form of transportation that is a "winner"-- it's about finding a mode that is best for you, where you are now, where you need to be, and when you need to be there. Sometimes driving your truck alone on the road is sensible-- like when you're heading over to buddy to help him move. Other times, it's stupid-- like when you drive 3 blocks down the street to pick up some tic-tacs.
Regular Trips:
Walking is suggested for round trips under two miles -- It helps keep the person healthy and burns no fossil fuels in the process. When you get home, don't raise 40 cows for slaughter.
Bicycling is suggested for trips for round trips under 15 miles (fitness and competency varying) -- It helps to keep the person healthy and burns no fossil fuels in the process. See above comment about raising cows.
Bus Transit is suggested for round trips under 15 miles or longer trips depending on availability-- It burns fossil fuels, but it's like a giant carpool.
Train Transit is is suggested for round trips over 30 miles or longer trips depending on availability-- It burns fossil fuels (directly and/or indirectly), but it's like a giant carpool.
Carpooling and Vanpooling is suggested for 20+ mile commutes -- It reduces the amount of pollution per user in areas where transit is not an option
Irregular Trips
Carpool (see above)
Passenger Jet - In a packed jet and for trips greater than 700 miles, you're actually doing pretty good when it comes to your share of greenhouse gases. The longer the trip, the better since the largest concentration of fuel burning comes at take-off.
You al
While I understand that you mean the best, it's just not what I want. I specifically don't want web access. At the risk of being cliche, here's a car analogy:
Imagine you want a car with more cargo space than your 2-door commuter has and but still have sufficient power to zip around gleefully. The dealer says, "I know what you need- A Chevy Tahoe!..."
--It has a massive engine for great acceleration
--A HUGE rear cargo area
--Fits 5 very fat people, 3 kids, and a dog.
--The headrests are massive and you can install televisions in them and on the dash
--There are 12 cup holders and 4 eating trays
--And you can tow a boat!
But you don't want to tow a boat. You don't like boating. You don't want to ferry around fat people as a hobby. You don't want a massive SUV to clog up your garage or the streets. You don't want the extra expense or distraction that comes with being able to watch TV in the car. You don't want to consume all your meals in your car.
You want something small and focused. You want something that doesn't try to do everything "okay", but something that does the essentials very, very well.
Instead, you want a 4-door hatchback. It has the cargo space you need. It's zippy on the road because there's not much weight to it. It fits neatly in your garage. It gets over 30 miles to the gallon. It fits 4 adults comfortably. If you need to move house, you can rent a truck for a day.