I'm curious, though, how kismet works. Could it be illegal to monitor someone else's network in this manner without their consent? Could it also be possible that even if gathering information wasn't illegal, uploading it to some database would be a breach of privacy? IANAL, but the legality of this seems dubious.
IANAL, but kismet is no more illegal than FM radio. All it does is listen to traffic (it doesn't even communicate with the router at all). You broadcast your signal publicly; it can't possibly be illegal to pick it up as long as you are not trespassing while doing that.
Now, if you use the packets you pick up and try to do brute force (or, in case of WEP, statistical) cracking, there may be some laws that prevent you from doing that (or at least you could be in trouble if people *somehow* find out), but I can't think of any (IANAL, but somehow, I don't think DMCA anti-circumvention provision applies).
Of course, cracking WEP keys this way takes a very long time, and to do it in a reasonable time, you need ARP packet injection (the sort of thing that aircrack does), but kismet does none of these. All it does is it puts your wireless device in the monitor mode and picks up wireless signals like your radio receiver picks up FM stations.
In other words, there are a lot of MAC addresses on your local network. The key point is this: A wardriver will get the MAC of your wireless router (well, if he connects to the network he might be able to get MAC addresses of your other equipment, but that would only be possible on an unencrypted network).
Er, have you ever done "wardriving"? Run kismet (a legitimate network monitoring tool, unlike aircrack, whose only "legitimate" purpose is doing "penetration testing") and see how many MAC addresses you can see.
You don't need to crack the wireless key, WEP or WPA, to see MAC addresses of ALL devices on the wireless. Heck, sometimes you might even see wired devices (like the cable modem), just because some of the packets (I don't know exactly what those would be; could be ARP, or simply unencrypted portions of normal packets) come from those devices to other devices that are on the wireless.
So, while it's true that MAC is public information and exposing it is no more dangerous than exposing your street address or email address, you should know that if you have a wireless router running at all, you are (potentially) exposing the MAC of every single device connected to it---and no, no cracking required, unless typing "kismet" on commandline is considered cracking these days.
Have you ever accused anyone of violating the GPL and then found out that they didn't?
I doubt this is likely to happen. As GPL enforcers' primary goal is compliance (not damage), when the violation is suspected, the copyright owner (or his agent) contacts the company first, asking them to comply with GPL.
If they are, in fact, in compliance, then the company should tell you before any public accusation is made. Lawsuits (and public condemnations) start only when the companies ignore the initial communications (which, I think, is done in the form of C&D letter from lawyers these days, if only because that will get escalated to right levels more quickly than an informal letter from the developer.)
Well she just asked "What exactly does a vice president do?", on CNBC. Um, ok that is scary.
Well, can you answer that question, then? What exactly does a vice president do?
Vice president has only two jobs that are defined by the Constitution---to succeed when the president dies or is incapacitated and to preside over the Senate (which includes casting tie breaking votes, which doesn't matter as much these days).
Everything else is highly dependent on the situation. You have some vice presidents who were so depressed about how little their job involves that they stopped attending cabinet meetings, and every now and then, you have a vice president like Dick Cheney, who, for better or worse, probably did a lot more than the president himself.
Again, if you answer the question "what does a vice president do" in anything other than in the minimal fashion (or, the famous "what the president tells him to do"), you have a high school civics class to re-take.
If the unthinkable happened McCain would already have a functioning administration...
The unthinkable? You mean the predictable.
Don't get me wrong---come November, I am going to vote for McCain (and my mind was made up on this a very long time ago---either May or earlier; I don't recall), but I am operating under the assumption that McCain will not last the 8 years that he would be elected for presidency (that is, if the first 4 years don't take him).
Why not? There's certainly precedent in the mainframe and workstation market. Even in the embedded systems market. Why should the personal computer market be the exception?
A legal precedent? Care to cite? If you mean existing other illegal practices, don't worry---somebody will get to those later.
Just because everyone else was speeding too doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ticket.
As I said, it comes down to the end justifying the means. Yours is one common view, but there is just as much support for the view that claiming copyright (as one must do to utilize "copyleft" licenses) is wrong regardless of the motivation, or that doing so undermines your ultimate goal.
I am guessing we (or, the two opposing camps) actually have different "ultimate goals".
The way I see it, the ultimate goal for a libertarian has to be the abolition of copyright system itself (and thanks to international agreements, this is going to have to be a global thing). Releasing one's works into the public domain does very little to achieve this ultimate goal, since other participants and powerful players in the system do not have a motivation to ditch copyright in this case. Poisoning the copyright system with the mechanics of copyleft achieves what public domain can't.
But, I can see how some purists would rather shun the entire system altogether. For them, the ultimate goal is to be free of copyright themselves, not to free the world from copyright.
Well, as for myself, I subscribe to the view that sometimes, peace needs a war---and such a war (to wit, "war to end all wars", although that particular one didn't quite work out) is more than justified.
I have seen this already where some have argued that all software should be required to be GPL
This is precisely what I am hoping would happen. That, once enough software and libraries are under GPL (or some other sort of copyleft license), then proprietary software companies would have no option other than to use GPL themselves (in which case copyright law itself would have been perverted beyond recognition), or, as is more likely to happen, they would lobby for abolition of copyright themselves, at least in software.
And if this phenomenon could spread to all aspects of culture, copyright abolition would no longer be mere pipe dream.
The problem is that copyright itself is contrary to libertarian principles.
And this is why libertarians (such as myself) should be for the copyleft licenses.
More permissible licenses like BSD do NOTHING to change the current status of copyright laws. Copyleft licenses, such as GPL, provide the real impetus for changing the current state of copyright in two ways:
1) they restore, partially, what you would have without copyright (for the licensed work itself, this is no different than BSD);
2) they (at least when it becomes widespread enough) give motivation to commercial entities to scrap or weaken copyright---since stronger copyright does mean stronger copyleft, automatically, and once a minefield of copylefted works have been created, the only way for them to maintain anything proprietary may be by abolishing copyright altogether (since without copyright, they can always use technological means to substitute the law, where as legal requirements of copyleft licenses cannot be bypassed as easily).
To put it simply, copyleft is the best way to fight copyright, both in the short term (after all, this is why RMS went with copyleft, rather than trying to advocate for copyright reform), and perhaps even in the long term (this is pure speculation on my part).
I think what the numbers mean is: the more impossible something is, the less time I want to spend reviewing it.
Then reject it. Approving it because you don't want to see it is almost like marrying someone because you hate him.
If rejected (through the longer process, rather than fast track), the ISO committee never has to see the spec again. If accepted, now they are responsible for maintaining it.
Don't kid yourself, the Democrats are complete shit, but they are far better than the Republicans *because* they are not as good as subverting the interests of their nation to the interests of their party.
On the other hand, on narrow issues such as copyright, Democrats are better (and better motivated*) than Republicans in fucking with our rights (fair use rights, reasonable length of copyright duration, etc.).
Frankly, as a libertarian and an advocate of copyright reform, it is for this single issue that I vote against the Democrats. Republican party has strayed away from their old, conservative ideal of small government that is of the people, by the people, for the people (a quote from Lincoln, a Republican and an opponent of slavery, unlike the Democrats), but even so, in issues that I care about, I trust them far better than I trust the Democrats.
* I am guessing that their motivation comes from their masters, the copyright industry (music, movie, and perhaps game).
normally i don't get upset about games of that nature though, i just buy another copy of it from the bargain bin.
I admit I've never used Steam (I'm not a gamer, and frankly, I don't have the time to play game AND read Slashdot), but how will that another copy from the bargain bin work without Steam?
Are there usually two versions of each game sold on Steam, one that is released on CD/DVD and serial number is the only protection to it, and another that is released on Steam and need activation by Steam server?
I'd leave it at my garage. The perfect alibi, the police themselves would testify I never left my home while whatever they were investigating happened.
Well, just make sure it's a wooden garage with thin roofs.
GPS devices have trouble locking onto their locations when they are not in open space---maybe it's just my Garmin eTrex and maybe the police can use the military frequency (or simply a better receiver), but if you are planning on establishing an alibi as you go out to assassinate the president, you want to be sure.
If there were more people like your friend parking fines would have to increase.
But until then, it's the bureaucrat/legislator's fault for not properly motivating GP's friend.
The fact of the matter is, not enough people can think with cool head and coldly calculate what is best for them. It's their fault for not being rational participants in the marketplace.
(Value of car) - (Probability of getting caught) * (penalty converted to monetary value) = Expected net profit (or loss).
It probably won't work for cars, as probability is probably greater than 1/2, and if you count lost wages while being incarcerated (not to mention the cost of being an ex-felon for life), expected net loss would be too great---you might as well buy lottery tickets or go to a casino, at that point.
But, for things as small as parking tickets, this could work as what some people call "reverse lottery". i.e. if you pay less in fines than you would have if you paid parking fees every time, then it's more economically viable to park without permits. Just make sure your probability estimates and other values are reasonable.
The thing is, when they codeshare (like in my example above), the price of the ticket changes---often a lot---without any reason in particular (other than that people like me are forced to fly through them---the good ol' monopoly (at least for a few select routes) and charging what the market would bear).
Frankly, I've given up on the whole airline industry, for their price-gouging, shoddy service, and unreasonable policies (at least most of the ones in the U.S.).
I wish that the lot of them would go bankrupt, without a government bailout.
However, why not book with a non-US airline if you're going on an international trip?
For personal trips, no reason.
But, most of the time when I fly, I'm flying because of the school business, and one of the stipulations of the travel grant (a federal grant) is that a U.S. airline has to carry me "over the water"---i.e. I can't use a foreign airline to fly out of, or fly into, U.S.
Personally, I think that the rule is ridiculous (I once saw a flight codeshared between the Polish LOT airline and United, where the ticket price through United was 3 times that of LOT, even though it was the exact same flight), but I don't want to get my school into trouble.
Sure they are. That's why if you look at the torrents, they're full of people trading Mickey Mouse cartoons that were only yanked away from the public domain by Disney's latest lobbying efforts. P2P is dominated by pop songs from the 1950s, and all those cracked game sites are full of Tetris and Pacman.
If you look at just the terms, you are absolutely right. Some people (like myself) may look specifically for those abandonwares, but that's not where the most active warez/p2p scene is.
However, if you look at the scope of the copyright as well, the parent poster is far more in the right than you are. Originally, copyright simply covered "maps, charts, and books", i.e. not music scores (which did exist with the technology of the time), newspaper articles, etc.
But over the last century or so, the scope of the copyright literally exploded, covering basically all aspects of the culture, and with the automatic copyright (no registration required, unless you want to sue for statutory damages), you will be lucky to find something that isn't copyrighted.
Just like you make everyone a tresspasser when you make all lands (including the roads) private, you make everyone a copyright infringer when you make everything copyrighted---and, since you are going to be infringing on copyrights no matter what you do (for example, sing "Happy Birthday" in a public place), why not fully participate and reap the reach rewards? As they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.
I'm no fan of RyanAir but largely because they have the ruthless attitudes necessary to prosper in a free market, inspired by the American example of SouthWest airlines.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have absolutely no complaint for Southwest airlines---cheap tickets, excellent service (especially compared to most other airlines)---least of all, not for "ruthless attitude", while I've had numerous problems with American Airlines, United, and Delta, to name a few.
Seriously, next time I'm flying, even if I have to pay out of pocket and get reimbursed later (as opposed to booking through my school's travel agent, and paying nothing upfront myself), I am flying Southwest, just to avoid all the other jerks.
My only complaint with Southwest is that it doesn't seem to serve international (i.e. transatlantic) destinations, so when I travel to Europe, I really have no choice but to deal with those asshole airlines.
Geez. Thanks for pointing that out. As you might notice above, I've completely missed that possibility.
Some people might buy a new car every 5 years or so (so always paying something for the car), others might use the same car for 30 years (this would make a huge difference, actually).
It's not always a matter of public inadequate transportation.
It's often a matter of simple sprawl.
And, may I ask, why do we need to sprawl?
And it's not just a matter of sprawling either. It's perfectly possible for cities to be smaller and more spaced out without requiring that every person needs to own a car and drive every day.
Driving only becomes a necessity when people don't want to live where they work (so they have to drive 20, 30 miles to work every day), and when people don't want essential services like shops and hospitals in their suburban residential areas.
If travel between cities aren't as frequently necessary, then a periodic bus systems (which are actually becoming more popular these days, for obvious reasons---look for Megabus) would suffice nearly for everyone.
Americans (and I speak as someone who lives in California) put themselves in this position themselves---the vastness of America didn't have as much to do with this mess as lack of proper planning did.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, though, how kismet works. Could it be illegal to monitor someone else's network in this manner without their consent? Could it also be possible that even if gathering information wasn't illegal, uploading it to some database would be a breach of privacy? IANAL, but the legality of this seems dubious.
IANAL, but kismet is no more illegal than FM radio. All it does is listen to traffic (it doesn't even communicate with the router at all). You broadcast your signal publicly; it can't possibly be illegal to pick it up as long as you are not trespassing while doing that.
Now, if you use the packets you pick up and try to do brute force (or, in case of WEP, statistical) cracking, there may be some laws that prevent you from doing that (or at least you could be in trouble if people *somehow* find out), but I can't think of any (IANAL, but somehow, I don't think DMCA anti-circumvention provision applies).
Of course, cracking WEP keys this way takes a very long time, and to do it in a reasonable time, you need ARP packet injection (the sort of thing that aircrack does), but kismet does none of these. All it does is it puts your wireless device in the monitor mode and picks up wireless signals like your radio receiver picks up FM stations.
Actually, that's a pot of boiling water.
Have you never cooked pasta before?
Jesus. That's almost like Christians crucifying heretics.
You don't kill the infidels in the same way you kill your savior.
In other words, there are a lot of MAC addresses on your local network. The key point is this: A wardriver will get the MAC of your wireless router (well, if he connects to the network he might be able to get MAC addresses of your other equipment, but that would only be possible on an unencrypted network).
Er, have you ever done "wardriving"? Run kismet (a legitimate network monitoring tool, unlike aircrack, whose only "legitimate" purpose is doing "penetration testing") and see how many MAC addresses you can see.
You don't need to crack the wireless key, WEP or WPA, to see MAC addresses of ALL devices on the wireless. Heck, sometimes you might even see wired devices (like the cable modem), just because some of the packets (I don't know exactly what those would be; could be ARP, or simply unencrypted portions of normal packets) come from those devices to other devices that are on the wireless.
So, while it's true that MAC is public information and exposing it is no more dangerous than exposing your street address or email address, you should know that if you have a wireless router running at all, you are (potentially) exposing the MAC of every single device connected to it---and no, no cracking required, unless typing "kismet" on commandline is considered cracking these days.
Except that the various interpretations of the QM are all useless.
Nothing ever came out of any of them (practical or otherwise), ever since the realist position was demolished.
Have you ever accused anyone of violating the GPL and then found out that they didn't?
I doubt this is likely to happen. As GPL enforcers' primary goal is compliance (not damage), when the violation is suspected, the copyright owner (or his agent) contacts the company first, asking them to comply with GPL.
If they are, in fact, in compliance, then the company should tell you before any public accusation is made. Lawsuits (and public condemnations) start only when the companies ignore the initial communications (which, I think, is done in the form of C&D letter from lawyers these days, if only because that will get escalated to right levels more quickly than an informal letter from the developer.)
Except of course, it's not her baby, it's her daughter's. When that gains traction, it's all over for McSame and Sarah Palin-Cheney.
Perhaps I should know better than to bite an AC's flamebait, but what do you base that lie on?
This article clearly says that it is Palin's (and her husband's) fifth child.
Well she just asked "What exactly does a vice president do?", on CNBC. Um, ok that is scary.
Well, can you answer that question, then? What exactly does a vice president do?
Vice president has only two jobs that are defined by the Constitution---to succeed when the president dies or is incapacitated and to preside over the Senate (which includes casting tie breaking votes, which doesn't matter as much these days).
Everything else is highly dependent on the situation. You have some vice presidents who were so depressed about how little their job involves that they stopped attending cabinet meetings, and every now and then, you have a vice president like Dick Cheney, who, for better or worse, probably did a lot more than the president himself.
Again, if you answer the question "what does a vice president do" in anything other than in the minimal fashion (or, the famous "what the president tells him to do"), you have a high school civics class to re-take.
If the unthinkable happened McCain would already have a functioning administration ...
The unthinkable? You mean the predictable.
Don't get me wrong---come November, I am going to vote for McCain (and my mind was made up on this a very long time ago---either May or earlier; I don't recall), but I am operating under the assumption that McCain will not last the 8 years that he would be elected for presidency (that is, if the first 4 years don't take him).
Why not? There's certainly precedent in the mainframe and workstation market. Even in the embedded systems market. Why should the personal computer market be the exception?
A legal precedent? Care to cite? If you mean existing other illegal practices, don't worry---somebody will get to those later.
Just because everyone else was speeding too doesn't mean you shouldn't get the ticket.
As I said, it comes down to the end justifying the means. Yours is one common view, but there is just as much support for the view that claiming copyright (as one must do to utilize "copyleft" licenses) is wrong regardless of the motivation, or that doing so undermines your ultimate goal.
I am guessing we (or, the two opposing camps) actually have different "ultimate goals".
The way I see it, the ultimate goal for a libertarian has to be the abolition of copyright system itself (and thanks to international agreements, this is going to have to be a global thing). Releasing one's works into the public domain does very little to achieve this ultimate goal, since other participants and powerful players in the system do not have a motivation to ditch copyright in this case. Poisoning the copyright system with the mechanics of copyleft achieves what public domain can't.
But, I can see how some purists would rather shun the entire system altogether. For them, the ultimate goal is to be free of copyright themselves, not to free the world from copyright.
Well, as for myself, I subscribe to the view that sometimes, peace needs a war---and such a war (to wit, "war to end all wars", although that particular one didn't quite work out) is more than justified.
I have seen this already where some have argued that all software should be required to be GPL
This is precisely what I am hoping would happen. That, once enough software and libraries are under GPL (or some other sort of copyleft license), then proprietary software companies would have no option other than to use GPL themselves (in which case copyright law itself would have been perverted beyond recognition), or, as is more likely to happen, they would lobby for abolition of copyright themselves, at least in software.
And if this phenomenon could spread to all aspects of culture, copyright abolition would no longer be mere pipe dream.
The problem is that copyright itself is contrary to libertarian principles.
And this is why libertarians (such as myself) should be for the copyleft licenses.
More permissible licenses like BSD do NOTHING to change the current status of copyright laws.
Copyleft licenses, such as GPL, provide the real impetus for changing the current state of copyright in two ways:
1) they restore, partially, what you would have without copyright (for the licensed work itself, this is no different than BSD);
2) they (at least when it becomes widespread enough) give motivation to commercial entities to scrap or weaken copyright---since stronger copyright does mean stronger copyleft, automatically, and once a minefield of copylefted works have been created, the only way for them to maintain anything proprietary may be by abolishing copyright altogether (since without copyright, they can always use technological means to substitute the law, where as legal requirements of copyleft licenses cannot be bypassed as easily).
To put it simply, copyleft is the best way to fight copyright, both in the short term (after all, this is why RMS went with copyleft, rather than trying to advocate for copyright reform), and perhaps even in the long term (this is pure speculation on my part).
(And yes, I _can_ think of more disgusting alternatives)
Like marrying your daughter?
Or, if you'd like some precedent to follow, your own mother?
I think what the numbers mean is: the more impossible something is, the less time I want to spend reviewing it.
Then reject it. Approving it because you don't want to see it is almost like marrying someone because you hate him.
If rejected (through the longer process, rather than fast track), the ISO committee never has to see the spec again. If accepted, now they are responsible for maintaining it.
i'm distressed you automatically catagorize intolerance as a "human" trait
I'm guessing he's basing that off of "To err is human".
If you categorize intolerance as a grave mistake, then it is characteristically human.
Don't kid yourself, the Democrats are complete shit, but they are far better than the Republicans *because* they are not as good as subverting the interests of their nation to the interests of their party.
On the other hand, on narrow issues such as copyright, Democrats are better (and better motivated*) than Republicans in fucking with our rights (fair use rights, reasonable length of copyright duration, etc.).
Frankly, as a libertarian and an advocate of copyright reform, it is for this single issue that I vote against the Democrats. Republican party has strayed away from their old, conservative ideal of small government that is of the people, by the people, for the people (a quote from Lincoln, a Republican and an opponent of slavery, unlike the Democrats), but even so, in issues that I care about, I trust them far better than I trust the Democrats.
* I am guessing that their motivation comes from their masters, the copyright industry (music, movie, and perhaps game).
normally i don't get upset about games of that nature though, i just buy another copy of it from the bargain bin.
I admit I've never used Steam (I'm not a gamer, and frankly, I don't have the time to play game AND read Slashdot), but how will that another copy from the bargain bin work without Steam?
Are there usually two versions of each game sold on Steam, one that is released on CD/DVD and serial number is the only protection to it, and another that is released on Steam and need activation by Steam server?
I'd leave it at my garage. The perfect alibi, the police themselves would testify I never left my home while whatever they were investigating happened.
Well, just make sure it's a wooden garage with thin roofs.
GPS devices have trouble locking onto their locations when they are not in open space---maybe it's just my Garmin eTrex and maybe the police can use the military frequency (or simply a better receiver), but if you are planning on establishing an alibi as you go out to assassinate the president, you want to be sure.
If there were more people like your friend parking fines would have to increase.
But until then, it's the bureaucrat/legislator's fault for not properly motivating GP's friend.
The fact of the matter is, not enough people can think with cool head and coldly calculate what is best for them. It's their fault for not being rational participants in the marketplace.
If you don't get caught, there's no punishment.
You should factor that into your calculation:
(Value of car) - (Probability of getting caught) * (penalty converted to monetary value) = Expected net profit (or loss).
It probably won't work for cars, as probability is probably greater than 1/2, and if you count lost wages while being incarcerated (not to mention the cost of being an ex-felon for life), expected net loss would be too great---you might as well buy lottery tickets or go to a casino, at that point.
But, for things as small as parking tickets, this could work as what some people call "reverse lottery". i.e. if you pay less in fines than you would have if you paid parking fees every time, then it's more economically viable to park without permits. Just make sure your probability estimates and other values are reasonable.
The thing is, when they codeshare (like in my example above), the price of the ticket changes---often a lot---without any reason in particular (other than that people like me are forced to fly through them---the good ol' monopoly (at least for a few select routes) and charging what the market would bear).
Frankly, I've given up on the whole airline industry, for their price-gouging, shoddy service, and unreasonable policies (at least most of the ones in the U.S.).
I wish that the lot of them would go bankrupt, without a government bailout.
However, why not book with a non-US airline if you're going on an international trip?
For personal trips, no reason.
But, most of the time when I fly, I'm flying because of the school business, and one of the stipulations of the travel grant (a federal grant) is that a U.S. airline has to carry me "over the water"---i.e. I can't use a foreign airline to fly out of, or fly into, U.S.
Personally, I think that the rule is ridiculous (I once saw a flight codeshared between the Polish LOT airline and United, where the ticket price through United was 3 times that of LOT, even though it was the exact same flight), but I don't want to get my school into trouble.
Sure they are. That's why if you look at the torrents, they're full of people trading Mickey Mouse cartoons that were only yanked away from the public domain by Disney's latest lobbying efforts. P2P is dominated by pop songs from the 1950s, and all those cracked game sites are full of Tetris and Pacman.
If you look at just the terms, you are absolutely right. Some people (like myself) may look specifically for those abandonwares, but that's not where the most active warez/p2p scene is.
However, if you look at the scope of the copyright as well, the parent poster is far more in the right than you are. Originally, copyright simply covered "maps, charts, and books", i.e. not music scores (which did exist with the technology of the time), newspaper articles, etc.
But over the last century or so, the scope of the copyright literally exploded, covering basically all aspects of the culture, and with the automatic copyright (no registration required, unless you want to sue for statutory damages), you will be lucky to find something that isn't copyrighted.
Just like you make everyone a tresspasser when you make all lands (including the roads) private, you make everyone a copyright infringer when you make everything copyrighted---and, since you are going to be infringing on copyrights no matter what you do (for example, sing "Happy Birthday" in a public place), why not fully participate and reap the reach rewards? As they say, in for a penny, in for a pound.
I'm no fan of RyanAir but largely because they have the ruthless attitudes necessary to prosper in a free market, inspired by the American example of SouthWest airlines.
I don't know what you are talking about. I have absolutely no complaint for Southwest airlines---cheap tickets, excellent service (especially compared to most other airlines)---least of all, not for "ruthless attitude", while I've had numerous problems with American Airlines, United, and Delta, to name a few.
Seriously, next time I'm flying, even if I have to pay out of pocket and get reimbursed later (as opposed to booking through my school's travel agent, and paying nothing upfront myself), I am flying Southwest, just to avoid all the other jerks.
My only complaint with Southwest is that it doesn't seem to serve international (i.e. transatlantic) destinations, so when I travel to Europe, I really have no choice but to deal with those asshole airlines.
Geez. Thanks for pointing that out. As you might notice above, I've completely missed that possibility.
Some people might buy a new car every 5 years or so (so always paying something for the car), others might use the same car for 30 years (this would make a huge difference, actually).
It's not always a matter of public inadequate transportation.
It's often a matter of simple sprawl.
And, may I ask, why do we need to sprawl?
And it's not just a matter of sprawling either. It's perfectly possible for cities to be smaller and more spaced out without requiring that every person needs to own a car and drive every day.
Driving only becomes a necessity when people don't want to live where they work (so they have to drive 20, 30 miles to work every day), and when people don't want essential services like shops and hospitals in their suburban residential areas.
If travel between cities aren't as frequently necessary, then a periodic bus systems (which are actually becoming more popular these days, for obvious reasons---look for Megabus) would suffice nearly for everyone.
Americans (and I speak as someone who lives in California) put themselves in this position themselves---the vastness of America didn't have as much to do with this mess as lack of proper planning did.