They get their power from us. Where's the problem? We are the ones who set the rules. Do you actually consider that a bad thing? At least the gov't is required to represent the voter. The corps are under no such obligation. I can't help it if the voter is asleep at the wheel. That's definitely not a gov't problem. It sounds more like the guy in the voting booth has a personal problem.
This isn't just a Web click-through petition that politicians can freely ignore; more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected from Canadian residents opposed to further expansion of copyright privileges... Emphasis mine
I'm very happy to see that somebody actually sees copyright for what it really is...A privilege...granted to you by the public, subject to revocation at every election. Let's not forget that, eh?
The airports were built by private contracters paid for with public funds. Again the gas taxes don't cover all the expenses. Not all private pilots are that rich, and they had to fight over and over again to keep the gov't from turning these services into a strictly user fee based economy. It would not be affordable. The road tax on gas is balanced by the artificially low price of gas(in the states) paid for by gov't subsidies to the oil companies. Hardly a good use of your tax money there. If all these services were financed by user fees only, the roads and the airports would be fairly empty(come to think of it, not a bad idea:)).
There will be competition. Among SBC and other companies.
There would only be real competition if the gov't(public) is allowed to compete. There is no competition amonst the private companies. They all own a piece of each other. The TV netowrks didn't like competition from cable. What did they do? They bought into cable. Problem solved. Cable doesn't want the telcos to provide entertainment. What will they do? They'll buy the telcos. By exclusivity, I mean that privately held companies can hang a "private property, keep off" sign on their wires, roads, tracks etc. I'm against that.
You know, it's not just about life and limb. Quality of life issues come up here also. And if we can use our gov't to improve that, then I'm all for it. I'm not at all sympathetic to the marketeers here. They should have to compete with the rest of us. They certainly don't compete with each other. They usually collude to extract a higher price. Rarely do they do it to provide better service. Gov't compettion helps to balance things out.
Well, if you vote for a "sucky" gov't, that might be true. Competetion between public and private enterprises is a good thing. This is why the post office AND FedEx provide pretty good service, and in the case of the post office, a very good price. And we don't hear too much from FedEx about "unfair" comptetion from the post office. Both are doing reasonably well. Everybody is getting paid. This can apply to any service. I don't want to see it go exclusively public or private. I believe that competition from the gov't(and vise-versa) is a good thing.
Airliners(all aircraft operating IFR actually) navigate through gov't provided satellites or VOR stations. Almost every major airport was built and is maintained through taxes. The gas/airport(?)(do you mean "departure" taxes?)tax(user fees in this case) doesn't cover it. The big issue for me will always be universal access. I'm against exculsivity for the highest bidder. It's that simple. This is the way I will encourage people to vote. If a large enough part of the population is cut off due to privatization, you will have big trouble. They won't and shouldn't stand for it. And I, for one, will be on their side.
I would rather use those taxes to put up community wireless than to subsidize the SBC monopoly. The tax was already collected. Let's see that it gets put to good use.We use taxes to support a lot of our infrastructure for good reason. One of those good reasons is to assure that everybody has access to it. Compared to the vast expenditures used for our international "adventures", this would be a pittance and is money well spent. It's up to us to make sue the money is well spent, and not just lining pockets. If you don't like taxes, turn over your car keys and the title to your house, turn off the lights and water. We'll plug up the sewer line at your property line. And no more flying for you. You're going to have to walk if you want to move about without using the infrastructure paid for by...taxes. Another big advantage of community services is that it keep s the private guys honest if they want to compete. It keeps the prices reasonable. So, yes, gov't wireless would save lots of money.
To say one side lies more than the other may be a mistake. The fact that one side gets caught more often is another matter. I firmly believe that both of the majors like things just the way they are. Both sides are extracting huge amounts of money and power from the rest of us. Their methods may be different, but the goal is the same. To that end, they are completely united as one.
a leftover from the first of the month. Why in the name of "your diety" would we need any legislation whatsoever in the entertainment field?? If they just want to make sure the thing doesn't explode in you pocket and rip your leg off, then fine. I could understand that. Let's just cut to the chase and make them put all our music back on vinyl so my grandmother can listen to her Led Zeppelin collection on her Victorola. This is getting so stupid on both sides, and does nothing to solve the IP problem.
If one hour works so well, why don't we set our clocks ahead two hours? Let's save a whole day and set them ahead 25 hours. Let's set them ahead by a year. Then we can show how much energy we saved last year. If we keep doing this we can easily stretch our supplies well into the next millennium.
...when I was driving and dinked that lampost wearing one, I didn't even get a concussion!"
1)The lampost was wearing a seatbelt? 2)Those sneaky lamposts. They have a way of jumping out right in front of you. 3)Actually you were in a coma for six years and nobody told you. You wife married another man, and your son doesn't even know you.
We need an apollo-type program to come up with and implement a cohesive plan to eliminate our need for foreign oil.
I have a simpler plan: walking, bicycling, good insulation, look for and buy efficient appliances, don't commute in the SUV. Use that for vacations. Use a more efficient vehicle for daily drives, stop subsidizing the oil industry to keep the price below the alternatives, vote for politicians that aren't industry shills, vote for good public transportation. The petrol companies buy from those nations because it's cheap. There will be no change until the profits from the way we do things now dry up. The companies don't care who hates whom. The resulting wars just add to the profits. Even though we use only 1% of all the water on the planet, we are preparing for war over that, instead of looking for an effective way of harvesting rain. The simple fact is that war and hate generate cash flow.
I'm sick of springing forward and falling back!
You think it's crazy up there? Here, the daylight doesn't vary by more than two hours. DST is nothing more than useless time shifting. I'm not sure if it's a result of NAFTA, but I'm pretty sure that it's just to keep our clocks synced with the Americans. There is no reason to change the clocks if you live between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
Better yet how about we ALL just start going by GMT!
I thought about that, and then how am I going to know when the sun goes down in Austrailia? What time do they crash at night? For me it's easier just to ask what time it is over there. I'm not sure which worse, one time zone with the sun rising and setting at every hour, or the 24 we have now and the sun doing its thing at pretty much the same "time" everywhere.
GMT's the One True Timezone anyway.
Hogwash! Heathen! Heretic! The international date line is the one true timezone. GMT is just another attempt by the Brits to control us all:)(Caution: For humorous application only. Do not take seriously. If taken seriously, call a comedian immediately. Do not induce vomiting. The comedian will do that for you.)
Hmmm...Let's see...They can make up any rules they want just because "they say so", but I can't? Very interesting.
If this agreement states that you cannot block any of the signals they transmit without their authorization... Emphasis mine
What did I say about messing with the signal that they transmit? And why for goodness sake are you taking this so seriously?? I know there's no privacy in anything I do. I don't care anymore. The majority doesn't want privacy. I'll assume that means I not allowed to have it. Whatever floats their boat. I just move to a place where it doesn't matter. Also, regardless of any agreement, once the signal comes through my wall, it's mine to do as I wish, and that's just the way I will treat it. I'm not interfering with anybody else's signal.
Yeah, you got it. It was actually decribed that way...as railroad monopolies...
Cities like New York, Boston, D.C., and San Francisco have good mass transit system.
Don't forget Chicago:) Great transit to and from both airports! and all over town. Sure is fun whizzing by all the stuck traffic on the expressway.
I take your point about driving to the airport, but remember that we don't use airplanes to commute...
Ever hear of Tom Joyner? What I believe are called regional airlines now, used to be called commuter airlines...or maybe that was commuter airliners...either way, quite a few people do commute by airplane, but lucky for them, they can use smaller, closer to town airports. Meig's Field was right by downtown Chicago. It enjoyed regular commuter service from Springfield, Bloomington, and that other big place down there I can't remember the name of...Champaign! That's it, and Indiana, Michigan, etc. Very little regular service, but it was there. The smaller cities probably have more regular air commuters due to the proximity of their airports. Probably what keeps the regionals afloat. Come to think of it, aren't most of the domestic air travelers actually business flyers? A lot of those travel probably at least twice a week? Aren't they responsible for our "crowded skies"? I don't know how to "google" the question. I can't believe that all those planes are full of vacationers. I've actually noticed a rush hour period at the airports also. Morning and afternoon. To me, a commute by air everyday would be real torture. I simply wouldn't consider it.
Even there, few systems could profitably operate within the private sector.
I wouldn't want to hand it over to the private sector. The benefits of gov't funded public transport are so enormous in terms of peace of mind for the user, the lower pollution and resulting health benefits, the reliablity of a well run system, all these things and many more make up for the taxes taken in. I just feel that the majority is mistaken when they vote against such systems. They probably feel that they would just be robbed. It wouldn't happen that way if they would just stay focused and keep an eye on the money. We can't just hand it to them and say, "Here, build me a train.". A strong will can do amazing things. And...to stay on topic(kinda), all this also applies to our space program.
My take on the railroads probably didn't apply here. They enjoyed a very strong monopoly which they used to extort very high prices from the farmers needing to get their produce to market. They were successful, but they were extortionists. Like with Standard oil, the gov't had to step in. Before they became the success they were, I'm not sure if things like track gage was standardized across the country, or who set them. gov't or the railroads? It's neither here or there anymore considering the public has indeed virtually abandoned the train for the car. We might not have any cross country or interstate passenger rail service was it not for Amtrak. So, despite all its flaws, I'm very glad we have at least that. To me, train travel is THE best way for overland transport. It's so nice and comfortable, and except for the drunks in their pick up trucks trying to beat the train to the crossing, it's very safe. Even Amtrak. I'll gladly hop onto an Amtrak train long before I'll get on on one of those plastic(carbon fibre), fly by wire(night), kerosene burning contraptions. I love the smell of diesel in the morning:) That fly by wire stuff is going to become pretty iffy as soon as the isulation starts to chafe off. We can fly forty or fifty year old aircraft because they were mechanical and metal with predictable failure rates. Only time will tell if these new computerized monstrosities will hold up as well. I don't trust a computer to operate heavy equipment unless I can pull the plug in an emergency.
You're right about public transport as long as it remins the kludge that it is. Nobody's going to use it until the thing can stop at your door...on demand. It's a real case of "Give me convenience or give me death". I now will only work in a place that does provide good public transport. I haven't had to drive to work for 20 years now. I can ride drunk(as long as I'm not belligerent and keep quiet). If they get into a wreck, nobody will ever be able to blame me for it. I don't have to stay awake. I pay a set fee. No licensing, insurance, gas, maintenance, tickets, parking, etc, etc, etc. to worry about. That, for me, is real convenience. To me public public transport is good socialism. For an example of what can happen to a good public transport system when the market deices how to do things, check out the history of Los Angeles's Red Car. They are paying a dear price now for letting that one go. Their present system is a sad joke.
No one wants to drive to the center of town to wait for a train that will take you to the center of another town. This is perfectly reasonable behavior.
I understand you here, but it's kind of funny that we do exactly that with the usually miserable drive to the airport(I know, time more than compensated with the comparatively "short" plane ride). And then you need transportation at the other end also. Airports aren't exactly close to downtown like the railway station usually is, and the weather isn't such a big issue. I think that now with all the silliness the airlines put you through now, you have to travel over 500 miles bfore the airliner will save you any time over the automobile.
Try to remember that the shuttle is a Rube Goldberg machine of the worst kind. We got stuck with it because the public was convinced(how could they know otherwise? Actually they had no idea what was going on during the design process. How much it would cost, etc. They were never asked. Probably for good reason) that the proper design made with the proper materials was too expensive, so like most gov't projects, it went to the lowest bidder that came up with a real mess. The thing was a dangerous contraption from the start. I don't have much hope for the next one under the present circumstances.
I completely agree with you here. What doesn't seem to be understood is that the gov't built and maintains the entire transportation infrastructure that we enjoy today. In fact there is really very little free market at play here. The railroads were once privately held in the beginning and look at the choas that resulted until the gov't stepped in(though part of the problem was due to gov't protected monopolies). Same goes for the hodge-podge of different regulations from state to state that had to be standardized by the feds. The "free" market will never be able to handle our transportation, communication, and other basic needs. That's why we have a gov't that collects taxes to fill that huge money pool to assure that these needs are met. The fact that our public transportation system is so horrible makes me doubt that those needs are being met adequately. A good system would be as safe and as simple as an elevator. Push a button, and off you go. The free market will never grant us that. I can assure you that the demand is there. However there are too many that are convinced that this is impossible, when in fact they are just unwilling to try. This is why our space program is in such a shambles. There's no will on the part of the public to build it up. They are convinced it's a waste. Due to the heavy politics and fat egos there, they might be right. Imagine how we would be if they felt the same about the national highway system, or rural electrification. A lot of us would still be using donkey carts and kerosene lamps. There certainly would be no regular airline service. It's also important to remember that "competition" from the gov't(that's us) keeps the free market honest. I wouldn't like to see the price of electricity if that market were to be completely deregulated and left in the hands of private marketeers. In reality, I would hope that something like that would induce people to look more closely into allternatives. However, even that will require some gov't assistance, through good, honest information, and possibly some temporary economic incentives. This would be a good election issue if we can keep the FUDsters away.
It has already been spelled out why we shouldn't let the market decide. The market is too fickle. We need technical standards set by disinterested technicians without any stake in the market to assure that the standards are technical in nature and not political as the case would be with the market deciding. Stability is the name of the game here. That is what can bring real progress. With the fickle market deciding, I wouldn't be able to keep my tv or telephone or computer for more than a year or two before I would need an upgrade to conform to the new standard(microsoft office and coreldraw are good examples. Office98 is more than good enough for almost all users, but it must be constantly upgraded to keep up with people who buy new computers). Imagine if we let the market decide how to deliver electricity everytime a "new" concept comes up. We would constantly have to re-invent every appliance we own. That's very profitable for some, but it doesn't benefit the general population. That seems to be the main difference between you and me. You seem to have a desire to let a few profit at the expense of the rest. I'm more interested in the maximum benefit for the most people possible. Exclusivity is not a good thing. I will always work against it.
If Sony dominated the TV market and found a new and more profitable way to deliver sound and images to people's homes and offices, it could bring that to market with no concern about the FCC. No FCC regulations would apply to Sony's new products.
There would be no profit for Sony if they made tv's that can't recieve the gov't mandated signal. Why would anybody buy such a tv? Despite all the FCC's problems, I'm glad they are here to make sure the signal is standardized so that I can buy any brand of tv. It also helps to assure that it remains patent or copyright free so that nobody can claim sole rights to such a technology that I would have to buy a license for if I were to manufacture tv's. Unlike what you see with CD's and DVD's and their respective players and certain computer filesystems. If you are against anarchy, then I guarantee you that you would not like it if the markets were the ones setting the standards, because that is what you would get. It would be the proverbial Tower of Babel. We have common standards to prevent just exactly that. That's why we asked the gov't to do it in the first place. It's one of the few things we learned from history. However, if the majority decides to vote it all away, you will get your wish. No sir, This is one of the things that a gov't is very useful for. I hope they hang on to that power as long as they can keep it from becoming political(Now, that would be bizarre, and it's already too late for that) Oh, and my cynicism comes from much experience. And like that pair of jeans, it becomes more comfortable every year...or every election as the case may be.
Imagine if Sony could alter the TV standards at its own convenience...
It certainly proves that the FCC is good for something. It makes it worthwhile to keep that 35 year old Magnavox running. There are some here who believe the market should rule the world. The rest of us are trying(rather feeblely(?)) to prevent that. Planned obsolescence doesn't work too well when you have scientifically determined standards. Sometimes the standards need the rule of law to give them teeth. When something significantly better comes along, then we can take another look and revise it, but it needs to be determined by technicians, not the marketers. There is nothing wrong with using the community(gov't) to set up commissions for this purpose. I, for one, prefer it be done that way.
But, it seems to me that IE's almost total market dominance allows it to establish de facto standards...
That's precisely why we shouldn't let the market determine the standards, only to let them change the standards at the slightest whim(like the IM standards constantly changing to break the OS chat programs). AM stereo is another example of this failure of the market to set adequate standards. We are supposed set up a scientific(pseudo-academic committee to you) comission to set standards, not marketing beancounters that we use now. That's what the real purpose of the FCC was supposed to be. This could provide some stability. It assures that the best standards are used, not necessarily the most profitable for any one company exclusively. If the W3C is supposed to set browser standards, then we must discourage people from using programs that don't adhere to them. The market should set the price, not the standard. We have real technicians available that should be setting the standard. Let's use them. The market is destroying the whole concept of standards... for profit. Again, only because we let it. Standards are what allows me to use a 70 year old telephone on brand new lines with brand new switching equipment that must adhere. I can use that same telephone almost anywhere in the whole wide world. Standards are what keeps the trains running. Imagine if your train had to stop to change the trucks everytime it crosses state lines. That's how it would be if the market decided.
Sony can't change TV standards because no one dominates that market.
Sony can't change TV standards because the FCC(or your gov't equivilent) set the standard, not the market. The brodcast signal is determined by law, and in this case, that's a good thing.
But, if 98 out of 100 TV's in the world were Sony's, then, yes, they could change standards
Again, in this case the gov't set the standard. Even if Sony had all the market, they still have to go through the FCC in the US. It would take a very large "contribution" to change that.
That's too bad. One of the nice things about the states was the freedom to travel across the whole country for days without stopping for anything but to buy gas and take a dump. I wonder if Austrailia is still cool with letting people travel uninhibited. Soon you won't be able to leave the house without showing ID. Your door will be locked from the outside until you swipe the card. I actually feel sorry for those of you who still believe in freedom. Seeing as that you apparently are the minority, you're pretty much stuck. For the rest of you...well, I'm sure you can figure out what I think of you.
Yes. We have agents come to your house and tape your eyes open, then pause the disk on the warning, and make you read it out loud. Then you must "sign zee papers, old man."
Slashdot Mirror
They get their power from us. Where's the problem? We are the ones who set the rules. Do you actually consider that a bad thing? At least the gov't is required to represent the voter. The corps are under no such obligation. I can't help it if the voter is asleep at the wheel. That's definitely not a gov't problem. It sounds more like the guy in the voting booth has a personal problem.
This isn't just a Web click-through petition that politicians can freely ignore; more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected from Canadian residents opposed to further expansion of copyright privileges... Emphasis mine
I'm very happy to see that somebody actually sees copyright for what it really is...A privilege...granted to you by the public, subject to revocation at every election. Let's not forget that, eh?
The airports were built by private contracters paid for with public funds. Again the gas taxes don't cover all the expenses. Not all private pilots are that rich, and they had to fight over and over again to keep the gov't from turning these services into a strictly user fee based economy. It would not be affordable. The road tax on gas is balanced by the artificially low price of gas(in the states) paid for by gov't subsidies to the oil companies. Hardly a good use of your tax money there. If all these services were financed by user fees only, the roads and the airports would be fairly empty(come to think of it, not a bad idea :)).
There will be competition. Among SBC and other companies.
There would only be real competition if the gov't(public) is allowed to compete. There is no competition amonst the private companies. They all own a piece of each other. The TV netowrks didn't like competition from cable. What did they do? They bought into cable. Problem solved. Cable doesn't want the telcos to provide entertainment. What will they do? They'll buy the telcos. By exclusivity, I mean that privately held companies can hang a "private property, keep off" sign on their wires, roads, tracks etc. I'm against that.
You know, it's not just about life and limb. Quality of life issues come up here also. And if we can use our gov't to improve that, then I'm all for it. I'm not at all sympathetic to the marketeers here. They should have to compete with the rest of us. They certainly don't compete with each other. They usually collude to extract a higher price. Rarely do they do it to provide better service. Gov't compettion helps to balance things out.
Well, if you vote for a "sucky" gov't, that might be true. Competetion between public and private enterprises is a good thing. This is why the post office AND FedEx provide pretty good service, and in the case of the post office, a very good price. And we don't hear too much from FedEx about "unfair" comptetion from the post office. Both are doing reasonably well. Everybody is getting paid. This can apply to any service. I don't want to see it go exclusively public or private. I believe that competition from the gov't(and vise-versa) is a good thing.
Airliners(all aircraft operating IFR actually) navigate through gov't provided satellites or VOR stations. Almost every major airport was built and is maintained through taxes. The gas/airport(?)(do you mean "departure" taxes?)tax(user fees in this case) doesn't cover it. The big issue for me will always be universal access. I'm against exculsivity for the highest bidder. It's that simple. This is the way I will encourage people to vote. If a large enough part of the population is cut off due to privatization, you will have big trouble. They won't and shouldn't stand for it. And I, for one, will be on their side.
I would rather use those taxes to put up community wireless than to subsidize the SBC monopoly. The tax was already collected. Let's see that it gets put to good use.We use taxes to support a lot of our infrastructure for good reason. One of those good reasons is to assure that everybody has access to it. Compared to the vast expenditures used for our international "adventures", this would be a pittance and is money well spent. It's up to us to make sue the money is well spent, and not just lining pockets. If you don't like taxes, turn over your car keys and the title to your house, turn off the lights and water. We'll plug up the sewer line at your property line. And no more flying for you. You're going to have to walk if you want to move about without using the infrastructure paid for by...taxes. Another big advantage of community services is that it keep s the private guys honest if they want to compete. It keeps the prices reasonable. So, yes, gov't wireless would save lots of money.
To say one side lies more than the other may be a mistake. The fact that one side gets caught more often is another matter. I firmly believe that both of the majors like things just the way they are. Both sides are extracting huge amounts of money and power from the rest of us. Their methods may be different, but the goal is the same. To that end, they are completely united as one.
a leftover from the first of the month. Why in the name of "your diety" would we need any legislation whatsoever in the entertainment field?? If they just want to make sure the thing doesn't explode in you pocket and rip your leg off, then fine. I could understand that. Let's just cut to the chase and make them put all our music back on vinyl so my grandmother can listen to her Led Zeppelin collection on her Victorola. This is getting so stupid on both sides, and does nothing to solve the IP problem.
If one hour works so well, why don't we set our clocks ahead two hours? Let's save a whole day and set them ahead 25 hours. Let's set them ahead by a year. Then we can show how much energy we saved last year. If we keep doing this we can easily stretch our supplies well into the next millennium.
...when I was driving and dinked that lampost wearing one, I didn't even get a concussion!"
1)The lampost was wearing a seatbelt?
2)Those sneaky lamposts. They have a way of jumping out right in front of you.
3)Actually you were in a coma for six years and nobody told you. You wife married another man, and your son doesn't even know you.
We need an apollo-type program to come up with and implement a cohesive plan to eliminate our need for foreign oil.
:)(Caution: For humorous application only. Do not take seriously. If taken seriously, call a comedian immediately. Do not induce vomiting. The comedian will do that for you.)
I have a simpler plan: walking, bicycling, good insulation, look for and buy efficient appliances, don't commute in the SUV. Use that for vacations. Use a more efficient vehicle for daily drives, stop subsidizing the oil industry to keep the price below the alternatives, vote for politicians that aren't industry shills, vote for good public transportation. The petrol companies buy from those nations because it's cheap. There will be no change until the profits from the way we do things now dry up. The companies don't care who hates whom. The resulting wars just add to the profits. Even though we use only 1% of all the water on the planet, we are preparing for war over that, instead of looking for an effective way of harvesting rain. The simple fact is that war and hate generate cash flow.
I'm sick of springing forward and falling back!
You think it's crazy up there? Here, the daylight doesn't vary by more than two hours. DST is nothing more than useless time shifting. I'm not sure if it's a result of NAFTA, but I'm pretty sure that it's just to keep our clocks synced with the Americans. There is no reason to change the clocks if you live between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn.
Better yet how about we ALL just start going by GMT!
I thought about that, and then how am I going to know when the sun goes down in Austrailia? What time do they crash at night? For me it's easier just to ask what time it is over there. I'm not sure which worse, one time zone with the sun rising and setting at every hour, or the 24 we have now and the sun doing its thing at pretty much the same "time" everywhere.
GMT's the One True Timezone anyway.
Hogwash! Heathen! Heretic! The international date line is the one true timezone. GMT is just another attempt by the Brits to control us all
Hmmm...Let's see...They can make up any rules they want just because "they say so", but I can't? Very interesting.
If this agreement states that you cannot block any of the signals they transmit without their authorization... Emphasis mine
What did I say about messing with the signal that they transmit? And why for goodness sake are you taking this so seriously?? I know there's no privacy in anything I do. I don't care anymore. The majority doesn't want privacy. I'll assume that means I not allowed to have it. Whatever floats their boat. I just move to a place where it doesn't matter. Also, regardless of any agreement, once the signal comes through my wall, it's mine to do as I wish, and that's just the way I will treat it. I'm not interfering with anybody else's signal.
Yeah, you got it. It was actually decribed that way...as railroad monopolies...
:) Great transit to and from both airports! and all over town. Sure is fun whizzing by all the stuck traffic on the expressway.
Cities like New York, Boston, D.C., and San Francisco have good mass transit system.
Don't forget Chicago
I take your point about driving to the airport, but remember that we don't use airplanes to commute...
Ever hear of Tom Joyner? What I believe are called regional airlines now, used to be called commuter airlines...or maybe that was commuter airliners...either way, quite a few people do commute by airplane, but lucky for them, they can use smaller, closer to town airports. Meig's Field was right by downtown Chicago. It enjoyed regular commuter service from Springfield, Bloomington, and that other big place down there I can't remember the name of...Champaign! That's it, and Indiana, Michigan, etc. Very little regular service, but it was there. The smaller cities probably have more regular air commuters due to the proximity of their airports. Probably what keeps the regionals afloat. Come to think of it, aren't most of the domestic air travelers actually business flyers? A lot of those travel probably at least twice a week? Aren't they responsible for our "crowded skies"? I don't know how to "google" the question. I can't believe that all those planes are full of vacationers. I've actually noticed a rush hour period at the airports also. Morning and afternoon. To me, a commute by air everyday would be real torture. I simply wouldn't consider it.
Even there, few systems could profitably operate within the private sector.
I wouldn't want to hand it over to the private sector. The benefits of gov't funded public transport are so enormous in terms of peace of mind for the user, the lower pollution and resulting health benefits, the reliablity of a well run system, all these things and many more make up for the taxes taken in. I just feel that the majority is mistaken when they vote against such systems. They probably feel that they would just be robbed. It wouldn't happen that way if they would just stay focused and keep an eye on the money. We can't just hand it to them and say, "Here, build me a train.". A strong will can do amazing things. And...to stay on topic(kinda), all this also applies to our space program.
And I should patent the device I invent to block all outgoing signals. It will be "a method of using a computer firewall on a TV".
My take on the railroads probably didn't apply here. They enjoyed a very strong monopoly which they used to extort very high prices from the farmers needing to get their produce to market. They were successful, but they were extortionists. Like with Standard oil, the gov't had to step in. Before they became the success they were, I'm not sure if things like track gage was standardized across the country, or who set them. gov't or the railroads? It's neither here or there anymore considering the public has indeed virtually abandoned the train for the car. We might not have any cross country or interstate passenger rail service was it not for Amtrak. So, despite all its flaws, I'm very glad we have at least that. To me, train travel is THE best way for overland transport. It's so nice and comfortable, and except for the drunks in their pick up trucks trying to beat the train to the crossing, it's very safe. Even Amtrak. I'll gladly hop onto an Amtrak train long before I'll get on on one of those plastic(carbon fibre), fly by wire(night), kerosene burning contraptions. I love the smell of diesel in the morning :) That fly by wire stuff is going to become pretty iffy as soon as the isulation starts to chafe off. We can fly forty or fifty year old aircraft because they were mechanical and metal with predictable failure rates. Only time will tell if these new computerized monstrosities will hold up as well. I don't trust a computer to operate heavy equipment unless I can pull the plug in an emergency.
You're right about public transport as long as it remins the kludge that it is. Nobody's going to use it until the thing can stop at your door...on demand. It's a real case of "Give me convenience or give me death". I now will only work in a place that does provide good public transport. I haven't had to drive to work for 20 years now. I can ride drunk(as long as I'm not belligerent and keep quiet). If they get into a wreck, nobody will ever be able to blame me for it. I don't have to stay awake. I pay a set fee. No licensing, insurance, gas, maintenance, tickets, parking, etc, etc, etc. to worry about. That, for me, is real convenience. To me public public transport is good socialism. For an example of what can happen to a good public transport system when the market deices how to do things, check out the history of Los Angeles's Red Car. They are paying a dear price now for letting that one go. Their present system is a sad joke.
No one wants to drive to the center of town to wait for a train that will take you to the center of another town. This is perfectly reasonable behavior.
I understand you here, but it's kind of funny that we do exactly that with the usually miserable drive to the airport(I know, time more than compensated with the comparatively "short" plane ride). And then you need transportation at the other end also. Airports aren't exactly close to downtown like the railway station usually is, and the weather isn't such a big issue. I think that now with all the silliness the airlines put you through now, you have to travel over 500 miles bfore the airliner will save you any time over the automobile.
Try to remember that the shuttle is a Rube Goldberg machine of the worst kind. We got stuck with it because the public was convinced(how could they know otherwise? Actually they had no idea what was going on during the design process. How much it would cost, etc. They were never asked. Probably for good reason) that the proper design made with the proper materials was too expensive, so like most gov't projects, it went to the lowest bidder that came up with a real mess. The thing was a dangerous contraption from the start. I don't have much hope for the next one under the present circumstances.
I completely agree with you here. What doesn't seem to be understood is that the gov't built and maintains the entire transportation infrastructure that we enjoy today. In fact there is really very little free market at play here. The railroads were once privately held in the beginning and look at the choas that resulted until the gov't stepped in(though part of the problem was due to gov't protected monopolies). Same goes for the hodge-podge of different regulations from state to state that had to be standardized by the feds. The "free" market will never be able to handle our transportation, communication, and other basic needs. That's why we have a gov't that collects taxes to fill that huge money pool to assure that these needs are met. The fact that our public transportation system is so horrible makes me doubt that those needs are being met adequately. A good system would be as safe and as simple as an elevator. Push a button, and off you go. The free market will never grant us that. I can assure you that the demand is there. However there are too many that are convinced that this is impossible, when in fact they are just unwilling to try. This is why our space program is in such a shambles. There's no will on the part of the public to build it up. They are convinced it's a waste. Due to the heavy politics and fat egos there, they might be right. Imagine how we would be if they felt the same about the national highway system, or rural electrification. A lot of us would still be using donkey carts and kerosene lamps. There certainly would be no regular airline service. It's also important to remember that "competition" from the gov't(that's us) keeps the free market honest. I wouldn't like to see the price of electricity if that market were to be completely deregulated and left in the hands of private marketeers. In reality, I would hope that something like that would induce people to look more closely into allternatives. However, even that will require some gov't assistance, through good, honest information, and possibly some temporary economic incentives. This would be a good election issue if we can keep the FUDsters away.
It has already been spelled out why we shouldn't let the market decide. The market is too fickle. We need technical standards set by disinterested technicians without any stake in the market to assure that the standards are technical in nature and not political as the case would be with the market deciding. Stability is the name of the game here. That is what can bring real progress. With the fickle market deciding, I wouldn't be able to keep my tv or telephone or computer for more than a year or two before I would need an upgrade to conform to the new standard(microsoft office and coreldraw are good examples. Office98 is more than good enough for almost all users, but it must be constantly upgraded to keep up with people who buy new computers). Imagine if we let the market decide how to deliver electricity everytime a "new" concept comes up. We would constantly have to re-invent every appliance we own. That's very profitable for some, but it doesn't benefit the general population. That seems to be the main difference between you and me. You seem to have a desire to let a few profit at the expense of the rest. I'm more interested in the maximum benefit for the most people possible. Exclusivity is not a good thing. I will always work against it.
If Sony dominated the TV market and found a new and more profitable way to deliver sound and images to people's homes and offices, it could bring that to market with no concern about the FCC. No FCC regulations would apply to Sony's new products.
There would be no profit for Sony if they made tv's that can't recieve the gov't mandated signal. Why would anybody buy such a tv? Despite all the FCC's problems, I'm glad they are here to make sure the signal is standardized so that I can buy any brand of tv. It also helps to assure that it remains patent or copyright free so that nobody can claim sole rights to such a technology that I would have to buy a license for if I were to manufacture tv's. Unlike what you see with CD's and DVD's and their respective players and certain computer filesystems. If you are against anarchy, then I guarantee you that you would not like it if the markets were the ones setting the standards, because that is what you would get. It would be the proverbial Tower of Babel. We have common standards to prevent just exactly that. That's why we asked the gov't to do it in the first place. It's one of the few things we learned from history. However, if the majority decides to vote it all away, you will get your wish. No sir, This is one of the things that a gov't is very useful for. I hope they hang on to that power as long as they can keep it from becoming political(Now, that would be bizarre, and it's already too late for that) Oh, and my cynicism comes from much experience. And like that pair of jeans, it becomes more comfortable every year...or every election as the case may be.
Imagine if Sony could alter the TV standards at its own convenience...
It certainly proves that the FCC is good for something. It makes it worthwhile to keep that 35 year old Magnavox running. There are some here who believe the market should rule the world. The rest of us are trying(rather feeblely(?)) to prevent that. Planned obsolescence doesn't work too well when you have scientifically determined standards. Sometimes the standards need the rule of law to give them teeth. When something significantly better comes along, then we can take another look and revise it, but it needs to be determined by technicians, not the marketers. There is nothing wrong with using the community(gov't) to set up commissions for this purpose. I, for one, prefer it be done that way.
But, it seems to me that IE's almost total market dominance allows it to establish de facto standards...
That's precisely why we shouldn't let the market determine the standards, only to let them change the standards at the slightest whim(like the IM standards constantly changing to break the OS chat programs). AM stereo is another example of this failure of the market to set adequate standards. We are supposed set up a scientific(pseudo-academic committee to you) comission to set standards, not marketing beancounters that we use now. That's what the real purpose of the FCC was supposed to be. This could provide some stability. It assures that the best standards are used, not necessarily the most profitable for any one company exclusively. If the W3C is supposed to set browser standards, then we must discourage people from using programs that don't adhere to them. The market should set the price, not the standard. We have real technicians available that should be setting the standard. Let's use them. The market is destroying the whole concept of standards... for profit. Again, only because we let it. Standards are what allows me to use a 70 year old telephone on brand new lines with brand new switching equipment that must adhere. I can use that same telephone almost anywhere in the whole wide world. Standards are what keeps the trains running. Imagine if your train had to stop to change the trucks everytime it crosses state lines. That's how it would be if the market decided.
Sony can't change TV standards because no one dominates that market.
Sony can't change TV standards because the FCC(or your gov't equivilent) set the standard, not the market. The brodcast signal is determined by law, and in this case, that's a good thing.
But, if 98 out of 100 TV's in the world were Sony's, then, yes, they could change standards
Again, in this case the gov't set the standard. Even if Sony had all the market, they still have to go through the FCC in the US. It would take a very large "contribution" to change that.
The gas tank is always full, and maybe he owns some Halliburton stock. I really don't take him seriously here.
...the Bush administration is alienating canada like no other administration in US history..
:)
Oh, I bet Mr. Madison has the first prize in that department. And check out who the VP was
I just can't believe the Canadian Immigration guy stamped my Passport and *then* told me the consequences of him doing that.
:)
What did you expect? That's how an EULA works
...it's not unusual for me to be pulled over...
That's too bad. One of the nice things about the states was the freedom to travel across the whole country for days without stopping for anything but to buy gas and take a dump. I wonder if Austrailia is still cool with letting people travel uninhibited. Soon you won't be able to leave the house without showing ID. Your door will be locked from the outside until you swipe the card. I actually feel sorry for those of you who still believe in freedom. Seeing as that you apparently are the minority, you're pretty much stuck. For the rest of you...well, I'm sure you can figure out what I think of you.
Yes. We have agents come to your house and tape your eyes open, then pause the disk on the warning, and make you read it out loud. Then you must "sign zee papers, old man."