For many people cable really is the only viable Internet service method. DSL bandwidth isn't adequate unless you live very close to the DSLAM, and wireless is way too expensive.
Because building out a cable network is massively expensive as well as a bureaucratic nightmare, it basically means that incumbent operators are de facto monopolies, even without the monopoly contract.
Remember when Google was trying to throw billions of dollars around making city-wide fiber networks, and then gave up? Yeah, if they can't get it done, what chance does some small-time operation with orders of magnitude less capital and political might?
Other than if you start splitting off features that are seldomly used anymore, and are simply vestiges of the past.
Who uses iTunes to install apps on their phone anymore? Who uses iTunes to back up data from their phone that isn't music-related?
These functions made sense pre-iCloud (not really as it would have been nice to use bluetooth like every other phone out there, but just go with it), however they just aren't needed now, especially with over-the-air OS updates being complete since iOS 5 or so.
It's time to tear that shit out and make iTunes an application for dealing with media, like it was meant to be back when it was called SoundJam before Apple bought it and started removing features (plug-in support for non-Apple devices, for example)
These rules have always been there, and yet the Republic survives. There are plenty of ways for getting these votes "on the record" from attaching them as riders on must-pass legislation, etc.
The reality is that only the activists for certain issues pay attention to any of that, and NN is not a deciding issue for the vast majority of voters the way that something like abortion is, even though your average congress critter has zero ability to do anything about abortion due to supreme court decisions.
So in order to get around a bad-faith company abusing their market position, I should conduct a multi-hundred-thousand dollar transaction to sell my house, pack up all my earthly belongings at financial and time expense, and move to where another company may or may not be abusing their monopoly position already?
There is a non-zero probability that you are a massive idiot.
Adding to that, the longer a plane is on the ground, the less money it's making. There's financial incentive to turning it over as fast as possible and getting it back in the air.
If the airlines could get you off of the thing faster and put another ass in that seat, they would.
That's all well and good unless you have a connecting flight. Oops, missed it? Then you get to wait 24 hours for the next one (in many cases).
Scheduling these things is pretty important from both a connecting flight perspective, as well as the efficient utilization of ground infrastructure (runways, gates, baggage handling, fuel availability, etc.)
Because different headwinds or tail-winds never happen. And the throttles are two-position levers - "stop" and "go".
If you have a late take-off, very often the pilot will fly the plane faster in order to still make the scheduled arrival time. And let me guess, the return flight was west-to-east, and thus you had a tail-wind the whole way?
There's far more reasons than "inflated flight durations" for what you describe, many of which are not massive leaps in logic.
It took off when it was supposed to. You got off the plane into the arrival airport when you were supposed to. You agreed to this schedule when you purchased the ticket. Airport resources are planned around these schedules, and it sounds like you're arguing that the airport should wildly over-build to accommodate flights that might have a quicker tail wind than usual, or other circumstances like that which would cause early arrivals.
Again, you agreed to the schedule when you purchased the ticket. They had you in your seat for the scheduled departure time, and into the arrival terminal at the scheduled arrival time. I don't know what the hell you're bitching about.
If they don't have a gate available, they don't have a gate available. Which means they also don't have baggage handling available, etc. They have these schedules for a reason and if you move outside the schedule, then sometimes resources aren't available until they were scheduled to be.
Are you really advocating for a massive build-out of infrastructure to be able to handle willy-nilly arrivals? Or would you then be bitching about all the over-building and the tax revenues and ticket surcharges necessary for it? I think we know the answer already.
How was it "spending 30 extra minutes in a seat" if they were earlier than the planned schedule?
You were scheduled for 13.5 hours in that seat, and it sounds like you got 13.5 hours in that seat, with a slightly larger fraction of it on the ground instead of in the air. What is the actual difference?
So they say that you'll be somewhere at X time, and they get you there at that time, and they're shitheads somehow for that?
Who gives a shit how much time you spend sitting on the tarmac if they get you where you're going when you need to be there? You're still pushing back from the gate at a specified time, and landing at a specified time - times that you agreed to when you purchased your ticket - what the hell difference does it make if you're sitting in an aluminum tube on the ground, or at 34,000 feet?
The other possibility is that the schedule is more realistic now, based on the last 50 years of data. And according to the summary, the on-time rates have improved by making the schedules more accurate to what actually happens, but somehow this is a bad thing that we should be getting enraged about?
This article is basically trying to drum up some kind of rage at airlines for doing what they should be doing - having the schedules reflecting reality rather than bullshit. And is it really that much of an inconvenience that it takes a whopping extra 60 minutes that you were going to spend anyway to go 3,000 miles when you waste far more time than that removing shoes and belts, and taking half your shit out of your bags to work your way past the porn scanners?
It's not like airplanes fly slower than they did 50 years ago - the schedules just reflect reality now.
Partisan legislation gets blocked by partisan action.
Anything short of declaring all line and wireless operators as common carriers isn't going to be enough. It's all just degrees of who's in who's pocket.
You know that these things don't just blast ionizing radiation in all directions when turned on, right? Plus, there is the concept of building a housing around it that shields any unintended targets from exposure?
How can you not visualize this? CT machines have been around for decades for medical imaging - it doesn't take a whole lot of serious think to figure out how to apply the same tech to looking through a suitcase safely.
Maybe the owner doesn't want to wait for notoriously flaky car Bluetooth systems to decide to work before using that data, and it's their car and their data so they have a reasonable expectation that they can use both how they like?
People know to wipe laptops, phones, tablets, etc before selling them - why would they think a car that keeps your contact and location data would be any different?
How about a little personal god damn responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
For many people cable really is the only viable Internet service method. DSL bandwidth isn't adequate unless you live very close to the DSLAM, and wireless is way too expensive.
Because building out a cable network is massively expensive as well as a bureaucratic nightmare, it basically means that incumbent operators are de facto monopolies, even without the monopoly contract.
Remember when Google was trying to throw billions of dollars around making city-wide fiber networks, and then gave up? Yeah, if they can't get it done, what chance does some small-time operation with orders of magnitude less capital and political might?
Only if you haven't been paying attention for the last 18 years.
Other than if you start splitting off features that are seldomly used anymore, and are simply vestiges of the past.
Who uses iTunes to install apps on their phone anymore? Who uses iTunes to back up data from their phone that isn't music-related?
These functions made sense pre-iCloud (not really as it would have been nice to use bluetooth like every other phone out there, but just go with it), however they just aren't needed now, especially with over-the-air OS updates being complete since iOS 5 or so.
It's time to tear that shit out and make iTunes an application for dealing with media, like it was meant to be back when it was called SoundJam before Apple bought it and started removing features (plug-in support for non-Apple devices, for example)
These rules have always been there, and yet the Republic survives. There are plenty of ways for getting these votes "on the record" from attaching them as riders on must-pass legislation, etc.
The reality is that only the activists for certain issues pay attention to any of that, and NN is not a deciding issue for the vast majority of voters the way that something like abortion is, even though your average congress critter has zero ability to do anything about abortion due to supreme court decisions.
Really.
So in order to get around a bad-faith company abusing their market position, I should conduct a multi-hundred-thousand dollar transaction to sell my house, pack up all my earthly belongings at financial and time expense, and move to where another company may or may not be abusing their monopoly position already?
There is a non-zero probability that you are a massive idiot.
Unless you are in a market that is served by a single provider, in which case you just go without reasonable access?
You clearly do not understand the issue at all.
Because political parties are one-issue beasts, right?
How about we vote for candidates that are the best policy match for our individual views, without any predisposition to any party at all?
A "omg don't vote Republican" is not any more nuanced or informed than "I'll just vote the party ticket"
Adding to that, the longer a plane is on the ground, the less money it's making. There's financial incentive to turning it over as fast as possible and getting it back in the air.
If the airlines could get you off of the thing faster and put another ass in that seat, they would.
That's all well and good unless you have a connecting flight. Oops, missed it? Then you get to wait 24 hours for the next one (in many cases).
Scheduling these things is pretty important from both a connecting flight perspective, as well as the efficient utilization of ground infrastructure (runways, gates, baggage handling, fuel availability, etc.)
Because different headwinds or tail-winds never happen. And the throttles are two-position levers - "stop" and "go".
If you have a late take-off, very often the pilot will fly the plane faster in order to still make the scheduled arrival time. And let me guess, the return flight was west-to-east, and thus you had a tail-wind the whole way?
There's far more reasons than "inflated flight durations" for what you describe, many of which are not massive leaps in logic.
What?
It took off when it was supposed to.
You got off the plane into the arrival airport when you were supposed to.
You agreed to this schedule when you purchased the ticket.
Airport resources are planned around these schedules, and it sounds like you're arguing that the airport should wildly over-build to accommodate flights that might have a quicker tail wind than usual, or other circumstances like that which would cause early arrivals.
Again, you agreed to the schedule when you purchased the ticket. They had you in your seat for the scheduled departure time, and into the arrival terminal at the scheduled arrival time. I don't know what the hell you're bitching about.
What, are you going to jump out the hatch?
If they don't have a gate available, they don't have a gate available. Which means they also don't have baggage handling available, etc. They have these schedules for a reason and if you move outside the schedule, then sometimes resources aren't available until they were scheduled to be.
Are you really advocating for a massive build-out of infrastructure to be able to handle willy-nilly arrivals? Or would you then be bitching about all the over-building and the tax revenues and ticket surcharges necessary for it? I think we know the answer already.
Sounds like a shitty airline. Delta doesn't do that.
How was it "spending 30 extra minutes in a seat" if they were earlier than the planned schedule?
You were scheduled for 13.5 hours in that seat, and it sounds like you got 13.5 hours in that seat, with a slightly larger fraction of it on the ground instead of in the air. What is the actual difference?
So they say that you'll be somewhere at X time, and they get you there at that time, and they're shitheads somehow for that?
Who gives a shit how much time you spend sitting on the tarmac if they get you where you're going when you need to be there? You're still pushing back from the gate at a specified time, and landing at a specified time - times that you agreed to when you purchased your ticket - what the hell difference does it make if you're sitting in an aluminum tube on the ground, or at 34,000 feet?
I really don't see what the complaint is here.
The other possibility is that the schedule is more realistic now, based on the last 50 years of data. And according to the summary, the on-time rates have improved by making the schedules more accurate to what actually happens, but somehow this is a bad thing that we should be getting enraged about?
This article is basically trying to drum up some kind of rage at airlines for doing what they should be doing - having the schedules reflecting reality rather than bullshit. And is it really that much of an inconvenience that it takes a whopping extra 60 minutes that you were going to spend anyway to go 3,000 miles when you waste far more time than that removing shoes and belts, and taking half your shit out of your bags to work your way past the porn scanners?
It's not like airplanes fly slower than they did 50 years ago - the schedules just reflect reality now.
Not untrue, but you could have also said:
Partisan legislation gets blocked by partisan action.
Anything short of declaring all line and wireless operators as common carriers isn't going to be enough. It's all just degrees of who's in who's pocket.
They are a valued asset which gets liquidated, and operated by another company for profit.
Did you think they lay thousands of miles of cable at the sea floor out of charity?
In order for something to undergo neutron capture and itself become e radioactive, you would need to be using a source of neutrons, or gamma rays.
X-rays != gamma rays
Read a book.
You know that these things don't just blast ionizing radiation in all directions when turned on, right? Plus, there is the concept of building a housing around it that shields any unintended targets from exposure?
How can you not visualize this? CT machines have been around for decades for medical imaging - it doesn't take a whole lot of serious think to figure out how to apply the same tech to looking through a suitcase safely.
Had to remove shows at Paris / CDG twice, last year. One was just to change planes from a flight from the US continuing to China.
Didn't have to do that in China, which is ironic. They were far more suspect of people with Chinese passports than anyone carrying a US passport.
If you haven't set foot inside an airport in almost 20 years, how are you not "living with it" ?
Doesn't seem like you interact with TSA at all.
Then don't buy any other car that talks to your phone via Bluetooth either.
This article only mentions Tesla for clickbait, but other manufacturers have been doing this for over a decade.
Don't be a tool.
Who says that it should?
Maybe the owner doesn't want to wait for notoriously flaky car Bluetooth systems to decide to work before using that data, and it's their car and their data so they have a reasonable expectation that they can use both how they like?
People know to wipe laptops, phones, tablets, etc before selling them - why would they think a car that keeps your contact and location data would be any different?
How about a little personal god damn responsibility.
Stock losses are only losses if you sell, or the company goes bust. Your short term thinking is what is wrong with the market.