I never thought that the summary was correct. I also wasn't karma whoring. I was calling someone out for getting their panties in a twist and calling someone down while simultaneously making the exact same error themselves. He wasn't indicating that the summary was bad, he was accusing the previous poster of throwing a hissy fit, failing to read, and/or karma whoring.
My post was about turning a mirror on the poster, not whether or not Win 7 would end up on notebooks. If you missed that, well I guess I should have wrapped the whole thing in sarcasm tags to avoid confusion.
So MS has to make Win 7 cheaper. The only way to do that is to make it more limited. The only other option is to concede the market to Linux which they will never do.
They can make Win 7 cheaper by just deciding to price it cheaper. It's software and the distribution CD's don't cost that much.
The real reason they feel that they need to squeeze so much money per license is because they have a lot of divisions that are hemorrhaging money. If they jetisoned those divisions and focused on their OS and Office apps, they could afford to charge a fraction of the current rate. This isn't mearly speculation either, they managed to become so large by letting companies and OEM's lisence the OS for peanuts for years and all it did was help them grow their market share and their cash reserves. They tacitly encouraged pirating of their OS if it kept the competition down. Now that they are the only proprietary OS available to OEM's they are free to charge what they wan't.
This is just their way of trying to appear price competitive without cannibalizing their high margins.
"Cybernit reports that the Starter Edition version of Windows 7 will only allow the user to run 3 applications at once. Targeted at notebooks, this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation, however it is a bold move from Microsoft, and it will be interesting to see how the operating system sells."
emphasis mine
The summary says notebook, the post you are responding to said notebook, only you are saying netbook. Why don't you try reading before you go attacking someone else for getting their panties in a twist. Or maybe you were just karma whoring to get modded up for being critical of someone for bashing MS.
here are big differences between moving vehicles for me. I cannot read anything in a car or in a bus, but trains are a completely different matter. Since the ride is so smooth, reading isn't a problem on a train, at least for me.
The trains I've ridden in the US are just as nausea inducing as a car or airplane (I only get nauseous if I try to read anything, otherwise I'm fine). Probably due to our trains being of inferior quality, but maybe I'd have a problem with yours as well. Never been to Europe.
Where I live [wikipedia.org], a lot of people use mass transit, both rich and poor alike. This is likely because of a combination of affordable prices, good comfort, frequent schedules and a big hassle with finding parking space if you would drive instead.
The social class implications of the mass transit system are probably unique to the US. It's not even all of the US, just those regions where the mass transit systems were installed after the wide spread personal ownership and dependance upon cars became common.
You mean like those who can't afford a car? Maybe it's like that in the US, but it doesn't have to be lite that. Mass transit here is subsidized to around 50%, with ticket revenue comprising the other 50%, and as I said, mass transit here is used by rich and poor alike, because it is such a convenient alternative.
I realize that it doesn't have to be like that. However, that's the way it IS right now in the US. I didn't say I'm a fan, just that building a high speed rail system will not be enough by itself to change the travel habits of Americans. We would need to either incentivize the use of the system, or make the other systems less attractive than they currently are.
In my experience, driving results in much more variable trip times than taking the subway, which I use for my daily commute to and from work. There is never a gridlock in the subway, but it is more the rule than the exception on the road.
I'm not talking about roads in Stockholm, I'm talking about roads in the US. A country that has shown no problem seizing the land of those that live by highways using eminent domain laws and widening roads to 6 and 7 lane divided highways in and around major metropolitan areas. As I said in a previous response to a different person, Americans have shown a willingness to pay a lot more for convenience of scheduling (car) and speed (air), and even if the train is free it'll still only get token ridership until that changes.
Ultimately, if the US is going to adopt a more European Mass Transit system we will need to dramatically change the way people think about traveling. We are used to our cars, and have certain expectations about how convenient or fast our travel is, and I don't see how a cheap train can realistically compare.
I'm not talking just about using the highways for personal transport. Everyone, even my father-in-law who never leaves his home town gets their food and other consumables delivered to the store via the highway. But we are not talking about expanding the rails available for delivering goods, that I whole heartedly believe is in the best interest of all americans and would be a necessary first step to dismantling or at least decreasing the size of the national highway system. What we are talking about is developing a high speed rail system who's primary function is moving people.
If we want to get people to ride a train when traveling, we need to make the highways and planes less attractive. I don't believe we can do it by making the trains attractive enough. One argument that will always be in favor of the car is "How are you going to get around town once you get where you are going?" Not saying I believe it is the best argument, but it is one you'll find yourself running up against. The only answers I've seen are using an unfamiliar subway or bus system or paying for taxi's at a lot more $/mile than would cost to drive your own car. Neither option is really attractive to people used to driving their own cars everywhere.
we can have a public transit system that is as efficient as we want, but if it's not convenient then it won't work. Cars beat trains/subways/buses in the convenience arena hands down. They probably loose by an equal margin when it comes down to costs, but Americans have thus far voted with their feet in favor of convenience over costs. Planes beat train/subways/buses in the speed arena hands down, although they are probably beaten in the price arena, So Americans have placed speed over cost.
In summary, Americans are willing to pay quite a lot extra for speed and/or convenience, neither of which will ever favor trains based on the way the US is laid out. That, IMHO, is the major bullet point that everyone overlooks when discussing the possibility of upgrading our mass transit systems.
My point is, all other things equal, you should not have to be paid extra for geographical concerns. I am well aware of the relocation bonus, but that's overhead that could've been added to the base salary or just as a signing bonus to get someone of even higher quality.
You only have to pay the relocation bonus once for each person you hire that lives too far away to commute. Adding that money to the base salary (which is usually pretty small in comparison to the salary itself) is break even for the first year and costs you more in subsequent years.
I agree that associating a method of transportation with prestige or humility is stupid, but it's not because we consciously thought it out. Its because that's the way things worked out, and being that we are social animals that depend to varying degrees on social hierarchies. In the absence of clearly defining lines between social classes, we will create our own be it race, religion, house size, value of our car, location relative to the local schools, etc.
We create dividing lines and then live our lives trying to make sure we don't slip. Not an attractive view of humanity, maybe not even the most accurate, but it does help explain a lot of what I've seen in the past.
If you would be commuting by train, your commute would not need to be considered wasted time. You would be free to do what you want, like read, relax, work, etc.
This may not be a problem for you, but I cannot read or work at all in a moving vehicle. I've tried dramamine and other motion sickness meds, but they don't work if I try to read anything. I could relax I guess, but I don't find the hard plastic seats on trains or busses all that comfortable. I may be in the minority on this, but I'd guess a fairly large minority.
The difference between subsidizing mass transit by rail and mass transit by highways is that everyone uses the highways, but I don't believe that everyone would use the rail. I admit it's my guess at future behavior, but I'm basing it on experience from the past and present. In my experience most (but not all) of the people that ride public subsidized mass transit do so because they have no other reasonable option.
Your third point assumes that no one ever learns the traffic patters between where they work and where they live. The convenience is not only being able to travel by yourself, but from being able to squeeze every min of "not at work" time that you can based on determinations of how long it takes to get from home to work, as well as to and from work to a given restaurant. There is also the convenience of being able to string errands together in the order that you choose to minimize the time they take to a much greater extent than is possible using mass transit systems on a fixed schedule.
I agree, but freight carried by road doesn't blow it's horn loud enough to wake several entire neighborhoods at 3 in the morning, like the trains I've been unfortunate enough to live near. Several places I've lived with this problem I never even found out where the tracks were located. I would just wake at odd hours of the morning to the train blowing its horn for whatever reason.
We are both arguing based on our assumptions of how things will play out, and our assumptions are based on anecdotal evidence and what ever we've read on the topic. I was not trying to imply that my suppositions were any more than that. I was instead trying to point to one of your assumptions that I believed to be flawed.
I fail to see any evidence that most companies are having a hard time finding high quality talent. Adding "more or better" to my description of your assumption doesn't change or invalidate my argument. If companies are having a hard time finding talent, or better talent, they've shown a willingness to pay to relocate people, and people have shown a willingness to relocate for better work (more money, better hours, better benefits, more satisfying work, etc.)
I infer from what you wrote that you live in a very urban environment, such as NYC or Boston. There the mass transit systems developed prior to the advent of mass ownership of personalized transport in almost all economic classes. There is also the higher cost of ownership of vehicles in major cities that makes their use by anyone less than the upper middle class not cost effective do to the widespread adoption of mass transit by the population at large.
My point as to the class implications were that the poor, unskilled laborers are already using what mass transit options are available, but it usually bus routes or subways that do most of their travel well within city limits. They are not living out in the suburbs in most cases. They live in the more urban areas, closer to downtown where this is a high concentration of unskilled laborers jobs. If we build a high speed rail system that extends from all urban centers to their associated suburbs, what will happen (in my opinion), is that more of the middle and upper management type employees will buy homes in the suburbs and live further from work with their overall commute not changing much. (Assuming you can create a high speed rail that hits all the suburbs while still being high speed, although I don't see how.) Those working in the lower management and grunt positions will continue to live in the urban centers, but because less of the money from the company will be staying in the urban area (as some middle management types move out to the 'burbs) we'll see an increase in ghetto type problems. Not because those working the lower paying jobs are prone to that sort of thing, but because they are easily preyed on due to little free money and even less options. It's exactly what happened to Hartford CT. It's the Insurance capitol of the US, but it's a ghost town after 5pm b/c all the white-collar workers live in the 'burbs, leaving the blue-collar workers to live in the abandoned down town. Gang crime in Hartford managed to make national headline news back in the 80's to early 90's, due IMHO to these kind of economic factors.
I don't believe that mass transit cannot work, just that it takes a long time to change peoples perceptions of it given the current love affair we have with our cars. Having used mass transit often in the last 10 years I can assure you that in the markets I've used it (Western Massachusetts, and Indiana) there is a negative stigma attached to its use. People judged me negatively for admitting to using mass transit once I got more than a couple of miles from a college campus. It is perceived as being the transport system of the poor. I know a lot of people that I work with and live near that pay $80+ a semester for a parking ticket and drive their car to work everyday instead of riding the bus that stops practically in front of their house. I admit that consistency and reliability are an issue, but since their being students at Purdue means that the University is paying for them to ride the bus anyway, the bus is essentially free yet they don't use it.
Mass transit will be a money loosing venture outside of the places where it is already well established until the stigma attached to it goes
What would make sense, however, is developing a rail system to interconnect the large cities on the west coat, and another one on the east coast. Make sure that airports are directly connected to these two train networks and you have the benefits of high speed inter-city train connections and the benefits of air travel for large distances.
I totally agree about the utility of two separate rail systems on the coasts. However, they already have this to a large extent (at least on the east coast), and it's hemorrhaging money every year. No one will ride it for the most part.
There is also the issue of Senators from the rest of the country throwing a shit fit about perceived pork barrel spending that they are being left out of (It's not pork if everyone gets some, right?!).
Then again, what about Chicago? They are a major city and central to the rail systems that already exist. However, it takes freight traveling by train more time to get from one side of Chicago to the other, than it takes to get from Souther California to the west side of Chicago. The freight companies have been trying to get some old unused tracks refurbished to cure this problem, but the neighborhoods are suing the pants off of everyone to prevent the trains from running through their neighborhoods. No one wants the noise, diesel fumes, or danger that comes with having train traffic in their neighborhood.
No one is denying that it is possible to have a topnotch commuter train system, just that it seems to be virtually impossible to have even a mediocre rail system, freight or commuter, in the US.
Not trying being a dick, but it seems to me as though most of the major cities in Europe are close together in the middle of the continent. Most of the major cities in the US are on the East or west coast. A traveler in the US is more likely to be flying farther, even if it is possible to fly just as far in Europe. It's not just about size, but about what percentage of travelers are going to need to go that whole distance.
There is a very big, and unsubstantiated assumption you are basing your theory on. That businesses are having a hard time attracting talent based on geography. I moved from MA to IN for little more than, at the time, $14k/year and the ability to get my masters degree. Most of the graduates from my program relocated immediately after graduation with their new employers footing the bill.
The people most likely to be using mass transit are not the ones being recruited for highly skilled positions, they are the people that work in service positions that cater to the highly skilled laborers.
I call public transit a joke because I've used it everywhere I've lived. Buses came every 15-30 min at UMass when I was there and went just about anywhere I could reasonably want to go. Here at Purdue, the bus is supposed to come every 30min but can show up anywhere inside of a 15min window around the scheduled time, and they only go to a fraction of the places I want to go. The options I have for getting to campus now are a half hour ride on a bus that shows up every 30min (ostensibly), or a 15min ride on a bus that only shows up 4 times/d. in the afternoon I have to get to the bus stop at least 20min early if I want to guarantee that I'll catch the bus I want. Otherwise it's not unusual to spend over an hour waiting because the first bus was 20min early and the next one is 20min late. The bus company is always trying to get more people to ride, but no one will ride if they can't reliably predict when the bus will be able to get them to work/class/doctors office/etc.
Not trying being a dick, but it seems to me as though most of the major cities in Europe are close together in the middle of the continent. Most of the major cities in the US are on the East or west coast. A traveler in the US is more likely to be flying farther, even if it is possible to fly just as far in Europe. It's not just about size, but about what percentage of travelers are going to need to go that whole distance.
I agree that the rail system could work in the densely populated coasts. However, we already have that (Amtrack) and no one rides it outside of a handful of routes between big cities and big suburban centers. They don't need a new rail, and its already been shown over the past several decades that it won't be cost effective to put them in anywhere else.
How does a train screaming through, east bumfuck iowa and not stopping generate anything for the residents except a headache? If it does stop in every small town it passes through, how does that still get to be called a high-speed rail? The current highway system at leasts allows for a fraction of those drivers to stop and buy gas and/or lunch on their way to where ever it is they are going.
I have to call bullshit on that one. Originally hailing from the great state of Taxachusetts myself, I can assure you that more of the state tax revenue is spent in and around Boston then is generated it that same area by a pretty wide margin. Western Mass is always getting shortchanged by the Boston Legislature. I've never seen any evidence that Federal spending in the state is any different.
Since the politicans and their friends tend to spend a lot of time in those cities, they get a lot of money. However, that doesn't mean they are getting a remotely fair share of it. Quite the contrary. How often does one issue get more attention than it probably deserves just because it directly affects someone famous or rich? Alternately, how often does a major issue get ignored because only the poor and annoymous are aflicted?
Europe is smaller than the US. Rail from NYC to LA will never be faster than flying unless they bury it underground. Over short distances, rail has the advantage, but longer runs are better suited by flying.
Either are faster than car, but usually more expensive even with todays fuel prices. At the furthest point it is roughly 3400 miles from the east to west coasts of the contiguous US, with the distance averaging around 3,000 miles. Not able to find exactly the same info, I was able to determine the distance between Lisbon and Copenhagen to be 1,937 miles. Never having been to europe myself I can't say for sure, but it seems as though most of the major cities that would have airports are in between these two cities and thus even closer together.
I'm not nocking rail per se, I just don't believe that it is the panacea for the US that many europeans seem to believe it to be. And I'm from New England, one of the few regions of the US where mass transit like trains, subways, and buses can be considered a success.
Why do we want to have people wasting even MORE time commuting?
Commuting leads to the atrophy of downtown urban area's, and massive wasting of everyones time and money. What we need are programs that make it easier to exist in this country without a car by setting up our cities such that the residential neighborhoods are closer to work. Not moving the expense of commuting from those that commute, to everyone by way of tax subsidized rail systems most won't use.
Public transportation is a joke in most parts of the US outside of New England. People know about mass transit, and may even realize they can save money, but it will always be less convenient than driving your car on your schedule. This won't change that one iota.
An OS with more polish doesn't necesarily do anything more than one with less polish. If anything it does less to avoid confusion, or at least less from inside the GUI. The polish comes from how easy/intuitive/quickly/etc. it does them.
I've used both Windows and OSX. Windows and Leopard both do just about the same things, I've just found that it's easier to do the things I want to do using a mac running Leopard, than a PC running XP or Vista. I've got plenty of annecdotal evidence from my family and friends that those not willing to devote a lot of time to learning their OS are more capable on a Mac than a PC. I chalk that up to the OS being more polished and aimed specifically at those uninterested in really learning about their OS.
Windows IMO is aimed primarily at businesses that employ OS 'experts' so they don't need to bother polishing things. They've made tons of money by selling to corporations that then act as free advertising aimed at their employee's. That's not working as well as it used to and MS is trying to add more polish to the OS (Aero in Vista), but we've yet to see that really translate into a better user experience for the non-geek users that make up the majority of computer buyers in the retail market.
I don't know about you, but when I applied for my Stafford Loans, I never thought that my loans were 99% sure and deserved. I thought I might be eligible for some money (and I was), but didn't feel entitled or brag about how I was entitled to the money.
I don't think that should make a difference, but it very well could be irritating some. There is also the natural bias by the middle and lower class against those in the upper class. That bias also extends to manufacturers of products that cater exclusively to the wealthy (something Tesla has done for a while). They may be trying to develop an "Everyman" car, but their rep is still based on a luxury car that only millionaires can afford. We members of the lower rungs of society don't mind these companies catering to the rich, but frown on the use of our tax dollars to support them. Even if it is from a program to promote alternative energy cars.
Because no-one else is willing to give them the loan.
If they were such a safe bet (profitable based on current products, that are continuing to sell, and only needing the extra capital to expand), then they would be able to get the loan from a bank, VC firm, or other smaller investors.
Instead, they are asking the federal government to write them a check, and it'll be the tax payers that foot the bill and potentially loose their shirts if Tesla defaults.
In my mind, that's a whole lot closer to the real reason for the outrage over Tesla, than bailing out VC's.
Republicans are the ones alwasy being accused of bowing to big corporate interests, but both sides do it. They just cater to different industries for the most part, and the Dems do a better job of making it look like they are doing it for the people that work for the company instead of the company. However, I think the political side of things is less of a motivator than the damage such large companies wreak when they collapse.
Tesla is a start-up and employ's only a fraction of the work force that GM has (never mind the legions of pensioners that would be SOL if GM goes belly up). GM and certain banks are considered too big to fail, not because of the inherent value of the corporations themselves, but because of the huge impact their insolvency would have on the unemployment rolls, property values, etc.
If Tesla goes belly up, it will definitely suck for those who work for/with the company, the VCs and those who've paid for, but yet to receive their electric sports car. However, the VCs and potential customers are not going to end up in the unemployment line, or file for bankruptcy, and those who work for the company make up a relatively small portion of their local work forces, respectively.
I'm not saying that GM should be bailed out. Bankruptcy court exists for a reason, and I think the freedom it would allow for restructuring debt would go alot further toward changing the culture of failure at the companies than taking handouts from the government every couple of months. I just don't believe that Tesla deserves any money either. I can stomach the bailout of GM (if with a lot of indigestion) because of how important the company is to large swaths of the country, but I'm by no means happy about it. Tesla has none of those arguments in its favor except that it's "Greener" than the alternative.
(I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)
I haven't followed the case, but I'm guessing the MS was not trying to hold the price of the software down, but keep it up. The former would be in the best interest of consumers, but the latter would definitely hurt consumers.
MS doesn't want any of it's partners lowering the value of the software in the minds of consumers. If consumers start to expect that Windows costs $50/license instead of $100, then they'll throw a fit when the New version has an MSRP of $150 (which they'll do anyway, but probably not to the same extent).
Seeing as MS is the only place you can buy their software as a retailer, there is probably very little real-world difference between "influence" and "dictate"
I agree that this isn't a whole lot of money for MS, but they are not in the "Cash comming out the ears" situation they were in a few years ago. IIRC, when they were trying to buy Yahoo, they were going to have to spend all the cash in the bank and then take out large loans to finance the deal.
Office is still earning money hand over fist, and despite the hoopla, the OS is still making them a lot more money than it's worth. However, the OS wasn't the blaizing success they were expecting, their entertaiment division is hemoraging money, and their 'Live' web resources aren't paying for themselves yet either.
IMHO, they aren't fighting this in part becuase it is a relatively minor fine, but mostly because they don't have money to waste on fighting this for the sake of principle. 5-10 years ago, this would have turned out differently.
Slashdot Mirror
I never thought that the summary was correct. I also wasn't karma whoring. I was calling someone out for getting their panties in a twist and calling someone down while simultaneously making the exact same error themselves. He wasn't indicating that the summary was bad, he was accusing the previous poster of throwing a hissy fit, failing to read, and/or karma whoring.
My post was about turning a mirror on the poster, not whether or not Win 7 would end up on notebooks. If you missed that, well I guess I should have wrapped the whole thing in sarcasm tags to avoid confusion.
So MS has to make Win 7 cheaper. The only way to do that is to make it more limited. The only other option is to concede the market to Linux which they will never do.
They can make Win 7 cheaper by just deciding to price it cheaper. It's software and the distribution CD's don't cost that much.
The real reason they feel that they need to squeeze so much money per license is because they have a lot of divisions that are hemorrhaging money. If they jetisoned those divisions and focused on their OS and Office apps, they could afford to charge a fraction of the current rate. This isn't mearly speculation either, they managed to become so large by letting companies and OEM's lisence the OS for peanuts for years and all it did was help them grow their market share and their cash reserves. They tacitly encouraged pirating of their OS if it kept the competition down. Now that they are the only proprietary OS available to OEM's they are free to charge what they wan't.
This is just their way of trying to appear price competitive without cannibalizing their high margins.
IIRC, the single window mode was an attempt at parental controls, not a "feature" to differentiate SKU's for the OS.
"Cybernit reports that the Starter Edition version of Windows 7 will only allow the user to run 3 applications at once. Targeted at notebooks, this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation, however it is a bold move from Microsoft, and it will be interesting to see how the operating system sells."
emphasis mine
The summary says notebook, the post you are responding to said notebook, only you are saying netbook. Why don't you try reading before you go attacking someone else for getting their panties in a twist. Or maybe you were just karma whoring to get modded up for being critical of someone for bashing MS.
here are big differences between moving vehicles for me. I cannot read anything in a car or in a bus, but trains are a completely different matter. Since the ride is so smooth, reading isn't a problem on a train, at least for me.
The trains I've ridden in the US are just as nausea inducing as a car or airplane (I only get nauseous if I try to read anything, otherwise I'm fine). Probably due to our trains being of inferior quality, but maybe I'd have a problem with yours as well. Never been to Europe.
Where I live [wikipedia.org], a lot of people use mass transit, both rich and poor alike. This is likely because of a combination of affordable prices, good comfort, frequent schedules and a big hassle with finding parking space if you would drive instead.
The social class implications of the mass transit system are probably unique to the US. It's not even all of the US, just those regions where the mass transit systems were installed after the wide spread personal ownership and dependance upon cars became common.
You mean like those who can't afford a car? Maybe it's like that in the US, but it doesn't have to be lite that. Mass transit here is subsidized to around 50%, with ticket revenue comprising the other 50%, and as I said, mass transit here is used by rich and poor alike, because it is such a convenient alternative.
I realize that it doesn't have to be like that. However, that's the way it IS right now in the US. I didn't say I'm a fan, just that building a high speed rail system will not be enough by itself to change the travel habits of Americans. We would need to either incentivize the use of the system, or make the other systems less attractive than they currently are.
In my experience, driving results in much more variable trip times than taking the subway, which I use for my daily commute to and from work. There is never a gridlock in the subway, but it is more the rule than the exception on the road.
I'm not talking about roads in Stockholm, I'm talking about roads in the US. A country that has shown no problem seizing the land of those that live by highways using eminent domain laws and widening roads to 6 and 7 lane divided highways in and around major metropolitan areas. As I said in a previous response to a different person, Americans have shown a willingness to pay a lot more for convenience of scheduling (car) and speed (air), and even if the train is free it'll still only get token ridership until that changes.
Ultimately, if the US is going to adopt a more European Mass Transit system we will need to dramatically change the way people think about traveling. We are used to our cars, and have certain expectations about how convenient or fast our travel is, and I don't see how a cheap train can realistically compare.
I'm not talking just about using the highways for personal transport. Everyone, even my father-in-law who never leaves his home town gets their food and other consumables delivered to the store via the highway. But we are not talking about expanding the rails available for delivering goods, that I whole heartedly believe is in the best interest of all americans and would be a necessary first step to dismantling or at least decreasing the size of the national highway system. What we are talking about is developing a high speed rail system who's primary function is moving people.
If we want to get people to ride a train when traveling, we need to make the highways and planes less attractive. I don't believe we can do it by making the trains attractive enough. One argument that will always be in favor of the car is "How are you going to get around town once you get where you are going?" Not saying I believe it is the best argument, but it is one you'll find yourself running up against. The only answers I've seen are using an unfamiliar subway or bus system or paying for taxi's at a lot more $/mile than would cost to drive your own car. Neither option is really attractive to people used to driving their own cars everywhere.
we can have a public transit system that is as efficient as we want, but if it's not convenient then it won't work. Cars beat trains/subways/buses in the convenience arena hands down. They probably loose by an equal margin when it comes down to costs, but Americans have thus far voted with their feet in favor of convenience over costs. Planes beat train/subways/buses in the speed arena hands down, although they are probably beaten in the price arena, So Americans have placed speed over cost.
In summary, Americans are willing to pay quite a lot extra for speed and/or convenience, neither of which will ever favor trains based on the way the US is laid out. That, IMHO, is the major bullet point that everyone overlooks when discussing the possibility of upgrading our mass transit systems.
My point is, all other things equal, you should not have to be paid extra for geographical concerns. I am well aware of the relocation bonus, but that's overhead that could've been added to the base salary or just as a signing bonus to get someone of even higher quality.
You only have to pay the relocation bonus once for each person you hire that lives too far away to commute. Adding that money to the base salary (which is usually pretty small in comparison to the salary itself) is break even for the first year and costs you more in subsequent years.
I agree that associating a method of transportation with prestige or humility is stupid, but it's not because we consciously thought it out. Its because that's the way things worked out, and being that we are social animals that depend to varying degrees on social hierarchies. In the absence of clearly defining lines between social classes, we will create our own be it race, religion, house size, value of our car, location relative to the local schools, etc.
We create dividing lines and then live our lives trying to make sure we don't slip. Not an attractive view of humanity, maybe not even the most accurate, but it does help explain a lot of what I've seen in the past.
If you would be commuting by train, your commute would not need to be considered wasted time. You would be free to do what you want, like read, relax, work, etc.
This may not be a problem for you, but I cannot read or work at all in a moving vehicle. I've tried dramamine and other motion sickness meds, but they don't work if I try to read anything. I could relax I guess, but I don't find the hard plastic seats on trains or busses all that comfortable. I may be in the minority on this, but I'd guess a fairly large minority.
The difference between subsidizing mass transit by rail and mass transit by highways is that everyone uses the highways, but I don't believe that everyone would use the rail. I admit it's my guess at future behavior, but I'm basing it on experience from the past and present. In my experience most (but not all) of the people that ride public subsidized mass transit do so because they have no other reasonable option.
Your third point assumes that no one ever learns the traffic patters between where they work and where they live. The convenience is not only being able to travel by yourself, but from being able to squeeze every min of "not at work" time that you can based on determinations of how long it takes to get from home to work, as well as to and from work to a given restaurant. There is also the convenience of being able to string errands together in the order that you choose to minimize the time they take to a much greater extent than is possible using mass transit systems on a fixed schedule.
I agree, but freight carried by road doesn't blow it's horn loud enough to wake several entire neighborhoods at 3 in the morning, like the trains I've been unfortunate enough to live near. Several places I've lived with this problem I never even found out where the tracks were located. I would just wake at odd hours of the morning to the train blowing its horn for whatever reason.
We are both arguing based on our assumptions of how things will play out, and our assumptions are based on anecdotal evidence and what ever we've read on the topic. I was not trying to imply that my suppositions were any more than that. I was instead trying to point to one of your assumptions that I believed to be flawed.
I fail to see any evidence that most companies are having a hard time finding high quality talent. Adding "more or better" to my description of your assumption doesn't change or invalidate my argument. If companies are having a hard time finding talent, or better talent, they've shown a willingness to pay to relocate people, and people have shown a willingness to relocate for better work (more money, better hours, better benefits, more satisfying work, etc.)
I infer from what you wrote that you live in a very urban environment, such as NYC or Boston. There the mass transit systems developed prior to the advent of mass ownership of personalized transport in almost all economic classes. There is also the higher cost of ownership of vehicles in major cities that makes their use by anyone less than the upper middle class not cost effective do to the widespread adoption of mass transit by the population at large.
My point as to the class implications were that the poor, unskilled laborers are already using what mass transit options are available, but it usually bus routes or subways that do most of their travel well within city limits. They are not living out in the suburbs in most cases. They live in the more urban areas, closer to downtown where this is a high concentration of unskilled laborers jobs. If we build a high speed rail system that extends from all urban centers to their associated suburbs, what will happen (in my opinion), is that more of the middle and upper management type employees will buy homes in the suburbs and live further from work with their overall commute not changing much. (Assuming you can create a high speed rail that hits all the suburbs while still being high speed, although I don't see how.) Those working in the lower management and grunt positions will continue to live in the urban centers, but because less of the money from the company will be staying in the urban area (as some middle management types move out to the 'burbs) we'll see an increase in ghetto type problems. Not because those working the lower paying jobs are prone to that sort of thing, but because they are easily preyed on due to little free money and even less options. It's exactly what happened to Hartford CT. It's the Insurance capitol of the US, but it's a ghost town after 5pm b/c all the white-collar workers live in the 'burbs, leaving the blue-collar workers to live in the abandoned down town. Gang crime in Hartford managed to make national headline news back in the 80's to early 90's, due IMHO to these kind of economic factors.
I don't believe that mass transit cannot work, just that it takes a long time to change peoples perceptions of it given the current love affair we have with our cars. Having used mass transit often in the last 10 years I can assure you that in the markets I've used it (Western Massachusetts, and Indiana) there is a negative stigma attached to its use. People judged me negatively for admitting to using mass transit once I got more than a couple of miles from a college campus. It is perceived as being the transport system of the poor. I know a lot of people that I work with and live near that pay $80+ a semester for a parking ticket and drive their car to work everyday instead of riding the bus that stops practically in front of their house. I admit that consistency and reliability are an issue, but since their being students at Purdue means that the University is paying for them to ride the bus anyway, the bus is essentially free yet they don't use it.
Mass transit will be a money loosing venture outside of the places where it is already well established until the stigma attached to it goes
What would make sense, however, is developing a rail system to interconnect the large cities on the west coat, and another one on the east coast. Make sure that airports are directly connected to these two train networks and you have the benefits of high speed inter-city train connections and the benefits of air travel for large distances.
I totally agree about the utility of two separate rail systems on the coasts. However, they already have this to a large extent (at least on the east coast), and it's hemorrhaging money every year. No one will ride it for the most part.
There is also the issue of Senators from the rest of the country throwing a shit fit about perceived pork barrel spending that they are being left out of (It's not pork if everyone gets some, right?!).
Then again, what about Chicago? They are a major city and central to the rail systems that already exist. However, it takes freight traveling by train more time to get from one side of Chicago to the other, than it takes to get from Souther California to the west side of Chicago. The freight companies have been trying to get some old unused tracks refurbished to cure this problem, but the neighborhoods are suing the pants off of everyone to prevent the trains from running through their neighborhoods. No one wants the noise, diesel fumes, or danger that comes with having train traffic in their neighborhood.
No one is denying that it is possible to have a topnotch commuter train system, just that it seems to be virtually impossible to have even a mediocre rail system, freight or commuter, in the US.
Not trying being a dick, but it seems to me as though most of the major cities in Europe are close together in the middle of the continent. Most of the major cities in the US are on the East or west coast. A traveler in the US is more likely to be flying farther, even if it is possible to fly just as far in Europe. It's not just about size, but about what percentage of travelers are going to need to go that whole distance.
There is a very big, and unsubstantiated assumption you are basing your theory on. That businesses are having a hard time attracting talent based on geography. I moved from MA to IN for little more than, at the time, $14k/year and the ability to get my masters degree. Most of the graduates from my program relocated immediately after graduation with their new employers footing the bill.
The people most likely to be using mass transit are not the ones being recruited for highly skilled positions, they are the people that work in service positions that cater to the highly skilled laborers.
I call public transit a joke because I've used it everywhere I've lived. Buses came every 15-30 min at UMass when I was there and went just about anywhere I could reasonably want to go. Here at Purdue, the bus is supposed to come every 30min but can show up anywhere inside of a 15min window around the scheduled time, and they only go to a fraction of the places I want to go. The options I have for getting to campus now are a half hour ride on a bus that shows up every 30min (ostensibly), or a 15min ride on a bus that only shows up 4 times/d. in the afternoon I have to get to the bus stop at least 20min early if I want to guarantee that I'll catch the bus I want. Otherwise it's not unusual to spend over an hour waiting because the first bus was 20min early and the next one is 20min late. The bus company is always trying to get more people to ride, but no one will ride if they can't reliably predict when the bus will be able to get them to work/class/doctors office/etc.
Not trying being a dick, but it seems to me as though most of the major cities in Europe are close together in the middle of the continent. Most of the major cities in the US are on the East or west coast. A traveler in the US is more likely to be flying farther, even if it is possible to fly just as far in Europe. It's not just about size, but about what percentage of travelers are going to need to go that whole distance.
I agree that the rail system could work in the densely populated coasts. However, we already have that (Amtrack) and no one rides it outside of a handful of routes between big cities and big suburban centers. They don't need a new rail, and its already been shown over the past several decades that it won't be cost effective to put them in anywhere else.
How does a train screaming through, east bumfuck iowa and not stopping generate anything for the residents except a headache? If it does stop in every small town it passes through, how does that still get to be called a high-speed rail? The current highway system at leasts allows for a fraction of those drivers to stop and buy gas and/or lunch on their way to where ever it is they are going.
I have to call bullshit on that one. Originally hailing from the great state of Taxachusetts myself, I can assure you that more of the state tax revenue is spent in and around Boston then is generated it that same area by a pretty wide margin. Western Mass is always getting shortchanged by the Boston Legislature. I've never seen any evidence that Federal spending in the state is any different.
Since the politicans and their friends tend to spend a lot of time in those cities, they get a lot of money. However, that doesn't mean they are getting a remotely fair share of it. Quite the contrary. How often does one issue get more attention than it probably deserves just because it directly affects someone famous or rich? Alternately, how often does a major issue get ignored because only the poor and annoymous are aflicted?
Europe is smaller than the US. Rail from NYC to LA will never be faster than flying unless they bury it underground. Over short distances, rail has the advantage, but longer runs are better suited by flying.
Either are faster than car, but usually more expensive even with todays fuel prices. At the furthest point it is roughly 3400 miles from the east to west coasts of the contiguous US, with the distance averaging around 3,000 miles. Not able to find exactly the same info, I was able to determine the distance between Lisbon and Copenhagen to be 1,937 miles. Never having been to europe myself I can't say for sure, but it seems as though most of the major cities that would have airports are in between these two cities and thus even closer together.
I'm not nocking rail per se, I just don't believe that it is the panacea for the US that many europeans seem to believe it to be. And I'm from New England, one of the few regions of the US where mass transit like trains, subways, and buses can be considered a success.
Why do we want to have people wasting even MORE time commuting?
Commuting leads to the atrophy of downtown urban area's, and massive wasting of everyones time and money. What we need are programs that make it easier to exist in this country without a car by setting up our cities such that the residential neighborhoods are closer to work. Not moving the expense of commuting from those that commute, to everyone by way of tax subsidized rail systems most won't use.
Public transportation is a joke in most parts of the US outside of New England. People know about mass transit, and may even realize they can save money, but it will always be less convenient than driving your car on your schedule. This won't change that one iota.
polish != function.
An OS with more polish doesn't necesarily do anything more than one with less polish. If anything it does less to avoid confusion, or at least less from inside the GUI. The polish comes from how easy/intuitive/quickly/etc. it does them.
I've used both Windows and OSX. Windows and Leopard both do just about the same things, I've just found that it's easier to do the things I want to do using a mac running Leopard, than a PC running XP or Vista. I've got plenty of annecdotal evidence from my family and friends that those not willing to devote a lot of time to learning their OS are more capable on a Mac than a PC. I chalk that up to the OS being more polished and aimed specifically at those uninterested in really learning about their OS.
Windows IMO is aimed primarily at businesses that employ OS 'experts' so they don't need to bother polishing things. They've made tons of money by selling to corporations that then act as free advertising aimed at their employee's. That's not working as well as it used to and MS is trying to add more polish to the OS (Aero in Vista), but we've yet to see that really translate into a better user experience for the non-geek users that make up the majority of computer buyers in the retail market.
I don't know about you, but when I applied for my Stafford Loans, I never thought that my loans were 99% sure and deserved. I thought I might be eligible for some money (and I was), but didn't feel entitled or brag about how I was entitled to the money.
I don't think that should make a difference, but it very well could be irritating some. There is also the natural bias by the middle and lower class against those in the upper class. That bias also extends to manufacturers of products that cater exclusively to the wealthy (something Tesla has done for a while). They may be trying to develop an "Everyman" car, but their rep is still based on a luxury car that only millionaires can afford. We members of the lower rungs of society don't mind these companies catering to the rich, but frown on the use of our tax dollars to support them. Even if it is from a program to promote alternative energy cars.
Because no-one else is willing to give them the loan.
If they were such a safe bet (profitable based on current products, that are continuing to sell, and only needing the extra capital to expand), then they would be able to get the loan from a bank, VC firm, or other smaller investors.
Instead, they are asking the federal government to write them a check, and it'll be the tax payers that foot the bill and potentially loose their shirts if Tesla defaults.
In my mind, that's a whole lot closer to the real reason for the outrage over Tesla, than bailing out VC's.
Republicans are the ones alwasy being accused of bowing to big corporate interests, but both sides do it. They just cater to different industries for the most part, and the Dems do a better job of making it look like they are doing it for the people that work for the company instead of the company. However, I think the political side of things is less of a motivator than the damage such large companies wreak when they collapse.
Tesla is a start-up and employ's only a fraction of the work force that GM has (never mind the legions of pensioners that would be SOL if GM goes belly up). GM and certain banks are considered too big to fail, not because of the inherent value of the corporations themselves, but because of the huge impact their insolvency would have on the unemployment rolls, property values, etc.
If Tesla goes belly up, it will definitely suck for those who work for/with the company, the VCs and those who've paid for, but yet to receive their electric sports car. However, the VCs and potential customers are not going to end up in the unemployment line, or file for bankruptcy, and those who work for the company make up a relatively small portion of their local work forces, respectively.
I'm not saying that GM should be bailed out. Bankruptcy court exists for a reason, and I think the freedom it would allow for restructuring debt would go alot further toward changing the culture of failure at the companies than taking handouts from the government every couple of months. I just don't believe that Tesla deserves any money either. I can stomach the bailout of GM (if with a lot of indigestion) because of how important the company is to large swaths of the country, but I'm by no means happy about it. Tesla has none of those arguments in its favor except that it's "Greener" than the alternative.
(I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)
I haven't followed the case, but I'm guessing the MS was not trying to hold the price of the software down, but keep it up. The former would be in the best interest of consumers, but the latter would definitely hurt consumers.
MS doesn't want any of it's partners lowering the value of the software in the minds of consumers. If consumers start to expect that Windows costs $50/license instead of $100, then they'll throw a fit when the New version has an MSRP of $150 (which they'll do anyway, but probably not to the same extent).
Seeing as MS is the only place you can buy their software as a retailer, there is probably very little real-world difference between "influence" and "dictate"
Market cap != Money in the bank.
I agree that this isn't a whole lot of money for MS, but they are not in the "Cash comming out the ears" situation they were in a few years ago. IIRC, when they were trying to buy Yahoo, they were going to have to spend all the cash in the bank and then take out large loans to finance the deal.
Office is still earning money hand over fist, and despite the hoopla, the OS is still making them a lot more money than it's worth. However, the OS wasn't the blaizing success they were expecting, their entertaiment division is hemoraging money, and their 'Live' web resources aren't paying for themselves yet either.
IMHO, they aren't fighting this in part becuase it is a relatively minor fine, but mostly because they don't have money to waste on fighting this for the sake of principle. 5-10 years ago, this would have turned out differently.
Ok.
But what "inevitable" thing am I trying to stave off? or was that a strawman of your own devising?