Amtrak is 100% government run and operated, becuase there is no profit in it. There is no profit in it becuase it not efficient. Germany is about the size of Oregon, we have dozens of states that large and larger.
Ah, but it is efficient. Planes are more efficient than cars because they can run on set schedules and carry more people per unit fuel. Trains are the same way, especially high-speed ones. With the right technology, trains beat planes for cost/mile on short-haul intercity passenger transportation, which is one reason why the Boston-Washington train route is profitable while others aren't.
Increasing speeds will help to improve the cost performance of trains. However, we should skip steel rails and go straight to InducTrak, a revolutionary maglev system with tracks that can be laid like steel because they need no electrification.
Maybe, just maybe, they've already thought of this.
Leave a return craft in orbit to achieve escape velocity, or make the return craft on the planet large enough to get off by itself. And nobody ever said we had to bring the propellants with us.
The shuttle, while a marvel of engineering, is a very inefficient way to get to and from space. It's not modular, so you're always launching the entire craft every time, complete with bricks, wings, control surfaces and landing gear which are of no use in space except to provide a bigger target for orbital debris. This means that a simple crew transfer that would be possible for $100 million costs $1 billion.
NASA should focus on a decentralized program of craft development. Have a group that makes crew capsules, the best damn capsule they can. Another group works on propulsion systems, which would also be modular, and still another works on cargo systems. Rockets could be built using only the components that are needed.
A major factor in improving costs is to make the engines and pumps retrievable. That way, all we're throwing away would be pressure tanks, which can be manufactured cheaply.
It's important when you're really really bored on that 3 hour flight. Geez, isn't this the site that wants better laptops for flying?
Difference: Laptops don't cause you to be any more annoying than if you were reading a book. Nobody wants to listen to your side of a conversation with your Aunt Zelda about her toe fungus because you're bored.
If they're going to do this they should start putting each party inside an individual pod. People who slather on perfume are bad enough, but couple that with a cell-phone addict and you have a recipe for a massacre.
There is a law in my state that says it's illegal, but it's never enforced. If the police started cracking down on the elderly, they'd lose their jobs because the elderly are the only ones who vote predictably.
And besides, the cops get nice shiny radar guns to catch speeders with from the insurance companies.
My question is: How the fsck can we trust Progressive, whose only motive is for profit, to be fair about this? Sure, in the first year they'll be nice, but eventually they'll abuse it. Without someone reining them in there's no way to prevent abuse. We need an external, non-affiliated body to regulate decisions based on this technology.
Maybe their asses will wake up one day and realize "a buck" is not ALL there is to being in business.
"A Buck" is all they go into business for. A business cannot be trusted to do anything except make a buck. We have been trusting them to take care of us and make us happy and provide us with things. They're not supposed to do that. We are. We're also responsible for making sure they provide use with what we want, and keeping them from destroying our lives in the process of doing business. How do we do this? REGULATION!
Okay, so what's your
excuse? If it's so easy and profitable, why didn't you raise some capital, start your own company, and beat them to it? Excuses, right?
Maybe it's how they scream "Regulations!!!" whenever some poor sap wants to start a company. It's happened lots of times to communities planning FTTH.
Or maybe it's how you need to raise HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to build a new infrastructure or spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to use their antiquated systems?
For that matter, why do you need to buy your phone from the company so it will work? Why can't you buy *any* phone, insert your SIM, and use *any* service provider?
I think it's time to let the government do what it's good at (creating and maintaining infrastructure) and let corporations do what they're good at (providing services based on the infrastructure).
I mean, it's not like FedEx built the roads or anything.
Wow. A fellow CenPennite. And a liberal, no less. Sweet.
As for Comcast, I don't expect much from them, based on past experience. I'm just trying to point out that corporations don't have our best interests at heart. They seek only profit at any and all costs. They are psychopaths, plain and simple.
It's probably similar to the US. If you took a 5 degree slice across the US and population density of those 5 degrees of canada, you'll find pretty much the same thing: Lots of people in the east, not so many in the midwest, and a lot of people in the west. It's similar in that respect. Maybe they don't have the north-south runs that we do, but they have the east-west runs, as well as the suburbs, major cities, and large rural areas.
My house in Harrisburg, PA is 5.3 K (over the wire) from the CO and the best DSL I can get is 512kbps. Luckily, I can get Comcast, but only at 3Mbps. And this is in a fairly densely populated suburb 2 miles from the center of the capital of my state. I'd be happy to get a 10Mb service, let alone the 20-100Mb that I'm sure most people in a similar area in Canada can get.
What's stopping me from getting 10Mb service? Comcast wanting to keep profits up. If they spend the money to triple or quadruple their speeds they'd have to charge 5-10 times as much to cover costs and make sure their shareholders get a good ROI. But no one would buy it at those prices, so they don't do it. However, if you eliminated the waste of profit and shareholders and corporate executives by creating a community run venture, costs would go down to $25/month, and you'd see thousands of people signing up.
I see nothing wrong here except the rich aren't being taxed enough. I imagine the middle class would love to pay zero income taxes if the ultra-wealthy paid 90%. We could do it, too.
The problem with Broadband in the US? Profit. If there is no profit in extending broadband to a community, then it doesn't happen. Profits given to shareholders or spread around executives with multi-million-dollar salaries mean higher prices and lower performance for us.
Why expand the network if you already have people paying $50/month for a 3Mb connection? Why not just spend a few million keeping communities from rolling their own infrastructure and providing service? It keeps profits up!
A more just comparison would likely be Canada; but wait: they're not only offering faster speeds than their southern neighbors, but consumers pay less, and Canada is close to South Korea when it comes to broadband penetration.
Slashdot Mirror
Spy Rule #42: Whenever looking for a top secret formula/document/microfilm, always look in the bra of hottest woman in the room.
Ah, but it is efficient. Planes are more efficient than cars because they can run on set schedules and carry more people per unit fuel. Trains are the same way, especially high-speed ones. With the right technology, trains beat planes for cost/mile on short-haul intercity passenger transportation, which is one reason why the Boston-Washington train route is profitable while others aren't.
Increasing speeds will help to improve the cost performance of trains. However, we should skip steel rails and go straight to InducTrak, a revolutionary maglev system with tracks that can be laid like steel because they need no electrification.
Leave a return craft in orbit to achieve escape velocity, or make the return craft on the planet large enough to get off by itself. And nobody ever said we had to bring the propellants with us.
Same here.
NASA should focus on a decentralized program of craft development. Have a group that makes crew capsules, the best damn capsule they can. Another group works on propulsion systems, which would also be modular, and still another works on cargo systems. Rockets could be built using only the components that are needed.
A major factor in improving costs is to make the engines and pumps retrievable. That way, all we're throwing away would be pressure tanks, which can be manufactured cheaply.
Difference: Laptops don't cause you to be any more annoying than if you were reading a book. Nobody wants to listen to your side of a conversation with your Aunt Zelda about her toe fungus because you're bored.
If they're going to do this they should start putting each party inside an individual pod. People who slather on perfume are bad enough, but couple that with a cell-phone addict and you have a recipe for a massacre.
If there's an accident I don't want my Powerbook flying around the cabin, as it is likely to be damaged.
And besides, the cops get nice shiny radar guns to catch speeders with from the insurance companies.
My question is: How the fsck can we trust Progressive, whose only motive is for profit, to be fair about this? Sure, in the first year they'll be nice, but eventually they'll abuse it. Without someone reining them in there's no way to prevent abuse. We need an external, non-affiliated body to regulate decisions based on this technology.
Instead, slow down. I've gone down to 35 mph because people were tailgating me. It pisses them off and they get the hint, eventually.
You give the asshole behind you too much credit if you think they'll reevaluate their following distance because they almost hit you.
Then why aren't their Office formats becoming XML based?
"A Buck" is all they go into business for. A business cannot be trusted to do anything except make a buck. We have been trusting them to take care of us and make us happy and provide us with things. They're not supposed to do that. We are. We're also responsible for making sure they provide use with what we want, and keeping them from destroying our lives in the process of doing business. How do we do this? REGULATION!
Maybe it's how they scream "Regulations!!!" whenever some poor sap wants to start a company. It's happened lots of times to communities planning FTTH.
Or maybe it's how you need to raise HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to build a new infrastructure or spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars to use their antiquated systems?
Not to mention that there is *no* explanation of what it *might* be. If they would have said "it's probably X doing Y," we may have believed them.
For that matter, why do you need to buy your phone from the company so it will work? Why can't you buy *any* phone, insert your SIM, and use *any* service provider?
I think it's time to let the government do what it's good at (creating and maintaining infrastructure) and let corporations do what they're good at (providing services based on the infrastructure).
I mean, it's not like FedEx built the roads or anything.
As for Comcast, I don't expect much from them, based on past experience. I'm just trying to point out that corporations don't have our best interests at heart. They seek only profit at any and all costs. They are psychopaths, plain and simple.
It's probably similar to the US. If you took a 5 degree slice across the US and population density of those 5 degrees of canada, you'll find pretty much the same thing: Lots of people in the east, not so many in the midwest, and a lot of people in the west. It's similar in that respect. Maybe they don't have the north-south runs that we do, but they have the east-west runs, as well as the suburbs, major cities, and large rural areas.
What's stopping me from getting 10Mb service? Comcast wanting to keep profits up. If they spend the money to triple or quadruple their speeds they'd have to charge 5-10 times as much to cover costs and make sure their shareholders get a good ROI. But no one would buy it at those prices, so they don't do it. However, if you eliminated the waste of profit and shareholders and corporate executives by creating a community run venture, costs would go down to $25/month, and you'd see thousands of people signing up.
I see nothing wrong here except the rich aren't being taxed enough. I imagine the middle class would love to pay zero income taxes if the ultra-wealthy paid 90%. We could do it, too.
Wow! And I was planning to move to Canada anyway!
I do know that one of them is Lock Haven, PA, which is only about 120 miles from my current location.
Canada: 3,855,102.64 square miles
Penetration: Similar to South Korea
Their solution: Public funding.
Why expand the network if you already have people paying $50/month for a 3Mb connection? Why not just spend a few million keeping communities from rolling their own infrastructure and providing service? It keeps profits up!
In other words, it's the Baby Bells and the FCC who make it hard for communities to roll their own broadband, not distance or regulations or profit.