I think you pretty well summed up; there is no advantage.
I didn't even address the fact that there is a big difference between elegance and terseness. What you provided isn't event elegant, its terse. Elegance is a simple solution to a [often complex] problem where a non-obvious solution exists. What you provided is a terse, meaningless example of rails. Big difference. Compared to your example, a static page is elegant.
In a nut shell, you really need to stop projecting your own inadequacies and fears onto other people. And if you don't have anything to contribute, simply don't. In this case, you shouldn't have, on every point I mention.
Clearly, you need to learn what communication is all about. Until then you'll only ever waste everyone's time. Period.
Cessna is reportedly saving about $77,000 USD by manufacturing in China yet the SkyCatcher still costs >$100,000 USD to buy.
Half of every dollar spent on aviation in the US goes to cover liability. Also, Cessna, by far, has the largest markup of any of the light piston US manufacturers. From what I've read, the plane is targeting $111,000. If liability laws were brought into sane reason, that same aircraft could likely be had for something like $50,000. Yet one more reason to drown all the attorneys tomorrow. And if the FAA were revamped such that it more readily allowed free market competition, that price could likely be in the $30k range while at the same time making aviation safer for everyone; including commercial flights.
If anyone has any doubt about the evils of attorneys, don't ever forget we all pay a premium price for all things aviation related and in exchange for doing so, we suffer a higher death and injury rate as a direct result. The sad thing is, this is the literal truth. If you doubt me, go learn the difference between the avionics allowed in experimentals versus certified aircraft and you'll understand both how much cheaper and better the experimental equipment generally is in almost every aspect.
To me, a transit service should either make a profit and run as a real business, or get the hell out of my wallet. I have enough parasites after my income as it is. Oh, the greater good? Make wider roads and increase the speed limits!
For most countries, in fact every country I'm aware, rail is budgeted under national defense. This is especially true for the US as otherwise you can only move up to three tanks or more typical, one tank per plane. Doing so is extremely slow and expensive. As such, its generally only done in theater.
Without rail, most of the world's militaries are unable to respond to any significant threat. Accordingly, military is never run as a "real business" and its extremely common for commercially held, national defense interests to be heavily subsidized by government.
First, let me say thank you for responding in a coherent, non-threatened manner. Seriously and sincerely. Your reply seems well thought out and also seems to support much of what I suspected; though not to the level of detail you provide.
It appears it boils down to personal preference in that the language and underlying philosophy simply speaks to a developer. I can absolutely respect that. Not everyone thinks the same way and not everyone goes about solving problems the same way. So while Rubyists may be "cowboys and amateurs", they likely are more effective using Ruby vs Python as it likely jives more coherently with the way their brain solves problems. If true, professionally I am objectionable to Ruby; though personally I can understand their position.
Thanks again. Anecdotally you've seemingly confirmed my suspicions.
First, let me say thank you for responding in a coherent, non-threatened manner. Seriously and sincerely.
More compact you can see more code on screen especially when using
So why not use Perl over Ruby if terseness is such a significant factor? You'd be hard pressed to be more compact than Perl.
From one rant I received, some seem to confuse terseness with elegance. Once again I find I'm thanking you for for not being so easily confused.
I do agree, from what little Ruby I've seen, terseness is a clear attribute of Ruby and seems completely contrary to the Python approach, which is concise readability and no more, if I may be allowed my own python impression vs Ruby's, I guess, compact readability. Then again, Perl's terseness borders on encryption territory so perhaps Ruby has figured out the right combination of terseness without encryption.;) But I cant help but wonder if that's not a personal preference. That's one of the reasons Perl doesn't particularly appeal to me and yet Perl has no end of champions.
Please don't get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing from with personal preference of a language. After all, a language which really speaks to a developer's way of thinking and problem solving goes a long way toward speeding development and problem solving. IMOHO, it likely aids in debugging comprehension too. But at the end of the day, IMOHO, that's not necessarily a language feature either; unless perhaps its universally true. And I'm not sure there is a clear indication of the later...
Which means your entire rant is safely ignored as I clearly referred to DATA. The word idiot comes to mind.
Okay, something is entirely clear from the replies I'm getting. There is no advantage and anyone who questions is to be attacked, as that's the only recourse available to Ruby users.
Wow, you're trying so hard to stress your opinion, it's as if you feel... threatened?
Hmmm... seems you're clearly projecting here. I'm asking questions to learn and to understand the attraction vs python and the only way to do so is by comparison. In return you attack? Why are *you* so threatened? Clear and expressive communication is entirely the point of communicating; and especially so in written form. If effective communication is threatening to you, you should seriously take time to re-evaluate your position.
JRuby is faster than Python
Pretty strong proof you're extremely threatened...which is absolutely not my intent. Comparing JRuby to CPython is bluntly, idiotic and you know it. Jython exists for the very same reasons jRuby does. Anyone not threatened by Python, as you clearly are, is going to compare Jython to RJuby and nothing else. You don't see other people running around making such odd claims. When people say Ruby they mean Ruby. And when people say Python, they mean Python. What they don't mean is JRuby and Jython, as when they mean that they say that - as I clearly have done so.
get '/' do
"Hello world." end
Elegant.
That may be elegant but its equally useless and slow. That example is exactly why we have static pages or at a minimum, cached pages. In other words, its not representative of anything anyone is likely to do with a Rails or TG like framework. That's why ORMs, templates, and all the other magic is so important.
I take it your position, if I may be so bold to read into your undertone, is Ruby's primary strength and elegance is strictly in web development?
Care to try take two and seriously address my questions in the above thread before you attempted to derail it? Hmm...wonder if the later part qualifies as a pun.;)
Much more....and it shows in the library from all accounts I've read.
But that's Python's only advantage.
Clearly not just from reading the comments left here. Clearly Python's maturity provides for code stability and far easier migrations to receive the performance benefits of newer VMs. I suspect, but don't know, the list is actually far, far longer, all of which to be attributed to Python's maturity.
Overall, Ruby is simply a more elegant and powerful language.
That's extremely subjective. The same can be said for Perl (and yes, I've done large Perl projects too), but at the end of the day, Perl is Perl and I'd take Python or Ruby any day of the week for 99% of the projects I do.
This is why you find people migrating from Python to Ruby, but very few going in the other direction.
That doesn't really carry much weight. In fact, from what I've seen, those that have migrated to Ruby from Python have largely migrated back - viewing Ruby as an interesting experiment. Furthermore, those that did migrate largely did so because of rails. Now that Python has a huge bucket of competing solutions, some arguably superior, especially in ORMs, the draw of Ruby vs Python seems to have been drastically reduced. The python vs ruby trends link someone else provided seems to also support this position. Which is to say, Ruby drastically grew, then shrunk, and has largely not changed after that.
And the maturity disparity is only a matter of time...
Actually its not. Its all relative. Python has a much, much larger developer and user base and as such, its far more likely the divide will widen over time. This divide includes the language features, general VM performance, and the library itself. Having said that, it does appear Ruby is likely to simply mature and perform good enough in the very near future, which is likely to widen its general appeal. Perhaps that's what you meant?
Also, JRuby is much more mature than Jython. If you want to work with Java libraries while still using a dynamic language, JRuby is the way to go.
While I don't have direct experience, Jython is very mature. It supports 100% of Python 1.5 and a good chunk of Python 1.6. I suspect, Jython is as mature as JRuby. If not, please clarify in what regards JRuby is significantly moreso and to what degree is sets it apart. Interestingly enough, if Jython is a significant factor (it likely is for only a tiny minority), IronPython leaves both JRuby and Jython in the dust in both scope and scale. Likewise, both Ruby and Python are actively getting some LLVM-love. For Python, Google is actively pushing the LLVM effort forward, made initial steps to make it an OS project, and has already made significant strides in the JIT-Python realm. Whereas, Ruby is still a community effort. Take from that what you will.
In short, your post has only convinced me, aside from Rails, Ruby has nothing to offer other than language uniqueness. Worth mentioning, a multitude of Python frameworks level the Rails advantage. That seems to all boil down to the only advantage Ruby has is personal choice and preference.
Which brings me full circle - what am I missing. Thus far, it seems nothing. Seriously - what is luring developers to use Ruby over Python?
Ruby is still far slower than Python on the typical basis. Jython, JRuby, and Java all perform about the same when running on the JRE, with Java still leading by a noteworthy margin; which isn't exactly surprising.
I really never figured out exactly who Ruby appeals to. It seems those who would be interested in Ruby would also be attracted by the more mature Python.
So what projects and for what reasons are people picking Ruby over Python? Perhaps Python isn't even in the comparison? Is it just to be different? The antithesis of the heard mentality? Some critical feature Python is missing? Superior frameworks? Why?
Keep in mind, rail is by in large not against these projects. Most of these projects mean HS cargo, a chance to expand operations, and more competitive options for passenger service. Because of current rails, that also means opportunity for new rails into new locations, with tax payers largely paying for it - and new subsidies to support ongoing maintenance. New rail locations means new cargo income which allows them to compete with trucks in more locations. Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, what's good for rail is ALWAYS bad for airlines.
Remember, HS rail need not be passenger service alone. There are many states where just HS intrastate service would be wildly beneficial to everyone - except airlines.
There is a reason why the bulk of the world's continental cargo is carried via train. Planes are got even close to being competitive. Next comes diesel truck. Then comes plane. That's why it will cost you $20-$40 for next day delivery of a tiny package, as it almost always travels by relatively expensive plane.
Notice most large distribution centers have rails on the back side of the building. Trains deliver whereby products are then placed on trucks for local and semi-local delivery.
I forget the exact numbers but trains provide something like $1 per ton per mile or something like that. I believe the only thing which is cheaper than trains per ton-mile is shipping per cargo ship.
You're right, that's why generally they are offered fair market value, or something that's at least reasonable, and not a pittance. Please note I did not phrase things in absolutes.
Everytime I read something like this I ask myself, "Why not in the US."
It has come up many, many times before but each time the airline lobbies kill it dead. Its really amazing just how powerful this collection of interests has proved to be over time. Generally speaking, they almost always get everything they want.
The general rule of thumb is, if the airline lobbies want something, its almost a sure thing to be bad for you, me, and Joe consumer.
I am ready to strangle people with iPhones on AT&T. It is such a joke. From Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Houston, and New York, I talk to people with crappy sound, disconnects within about 3-4 minutes (90% of the time), and pure constant frustration trying to communicate with these people.
Hate to tell you this but you just made the argument that either iPhone is a complete piece of shit or AT&T's 3G is. I have my Android phone on AT&T (sans 3G) and very rarely have problems. Quality is great. In fact, I typically have problems with OTHER users of other phones dropping off the call or with static on their end. Furthermore, coverage has actually been pretty good. AT&Ts coverage, including basic data (GPRS/EDGE) is markedly improved over just a couple of years back.
If anything, either the iPhone completely sucks as a phone, which may be, or AT&T's 3G network completely sucks. Regardless, AT&T with an EDGE/GPRS phone provides pretty good coverage and their EDGE data rates in most markets is actually pretty fast for what it is. Having said that, after using EDGE in Houston, I must say their EDGE data rates seem more comparable to GPRS - its SLOW in Houston. Thankfully I don't live there. Hopefully their 3G service there more than makes up for it.
2) How much shit people will put up with for a shiny iPhone.
From what I understand, that's why Verizon's Droid made #1 on their gadget list of the year and why the iPhone is #4. Simply put, Apple didn't improve anything on the phone other than make it faster than the previous version and play catch up with (at the time) anticipated Android features - no joke. Combine that with limited carrier options, iffy 3G, high number of disconnects, etc., Droid is an easy pick over that of an iPhone. And with so many yet higher end Android phones (far beyond the current iPhone) coming available on so many carriers, the iPhone suddenly looks very unattractive - unless they suddenly start copying Android - again - for their next iPhone release, and make it available on additional carriers.
What the fuck is with this need to bash countries? Especially when it's so far off the mark.
Why is stating fact considered, "bashing"? The FACT is, the stated fact is exactly how car companies advertise to consumers because of exactly that fact. Hell, in the US, car purchases are actually considered an impulse purchase (80%+ of all vehicle sales). Its an impulse purchase because its about both the car and the salesmen stroking the consumer's ego rather than the merits of the vehicle. The really sad thing is, few consumers actually realize they purchased a vehicle because they are a complete idiot rather than the merits of the vehicle. Because you consider the stated fact to be bashing, it strongly suggests you easily fall into the ignorant 80% category.
Perhaps the realization you purchase vehicles out of looks and ignorance rather than merit, function, and suitability, is a crushing blow to your ego and that's why you believe he's bashing? Its a rhetorical question - frankly I don't care one way or the other about why you purchase vehicles. I just wanted to make it clear, the GP's factual statement is not bashing and that's the facts. Regardless, you're never going to get away from small penis envy where people over compensate, whereas that's true around the world, but singling out G7 countries is hardly bashing.
Great questions considering its all been answered and your assertion is known to false.
Next time, just say you have no clue what the hell is going on, want to irrationally rant regardless of the facts, and have no interest in debating and/or learning. It will save everyone lots of time.
Not only that, but it's become a rather strong rallying cry in support of General Aviation - you know, private planes and all?
You read my mind.
If the government wanted to see a new renaissance in general aviation, they could pass a number of equitable liability and FAA laws which could lower aviation costs by as much as 75% (with 50% reduction more easily doable quickly and safely) - literally tomorrow. This in turn would directly stimulate the economy. Everyone wins except for piece of shit attorneys and their frivolous lawsuits. Contrary to the frivolous lawsuit laws and general perception, frivolous lawsuits are rampant in all things related to aviation because they prey on the ignorance of the general population to not recognize how frivolous their suite actually is.
But with airlines and attorneys with so many politicians in their pockets, sane, safer legislative changes are simply not likely. The simple fact is, the skies are literally more dangerous, including commercial travel, because of both of these lobbying groups.
As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving. Typically, private planes get me there in somewhere between 25% and 33% the time to drive, and for trips between 100 and 750 miles is a very competitive way to go.
Don't forget, contrary to the constant rhetoric you hear, flying GA can be much, much cheaper than flying commercially, especially when flying to destinations which do no have major regional hubs. In fact, flying GA can be cheaper than the required "puddle jumper" flight alone on the last hop from a regional hub to the more remote destination. And when a GA flight is less than 600-1000 miles (depending on plane), it too is typically faster than traveling commercial airlines. This becomes even more so as additional security theater is added at airports.
I don't land at big airports, I land at small ones that exist in nearly every community over 5,000 to 10,000 people or so. At these airports, delays really don't exist. There are usually not more than 2 or 3 other planes active at any given time, often none.
With the steady stream of lies coming from commercial airlines, many people falsely believe small airlines are the cause of many delays at major airports. This is completely false. Truthfully, small planes are actually the cause of huge decreases in airport delays. Small airplanes more typically service the smaller airports which in turn means less traffic is required at the major airports which commercial airlines use. Additionally, small airports are typically closer to the actual destination. Because of proximity, small airplanes actually save fuel compared to flying into a major hub and then adding the extra required driving. This is because the typical destination is often 20-60 miles away from the commercial airport. The typical savings don't include the fuel savings of extra delays which would be more common if these people were flying commercial rather than private GA. The simple fact is, GA offloads delays from these large airports, far more than the little GA traffic which do go into these large airports.
Small airports almost inevitably put me very close to where I want to go, anyway! Rather than drive 1.5 hours after landing, I get a taxi for the 3-5 mile ride.
Exactly! And some small airports even provide free loaner cars if your business is only a couple of hours or so.
And, contrary to the constant stream of lies told by mainstream media, who are actually talking about corporate jets and not GA as a whole, light GA typically seems fuel economy comparable to the typical vehicles on the road. Some airplanes actually see economy better than the average vehicle on the road. And a small subset actually sees considerably better economy than the average vehicle on the road. Best of all, at the given fuel
Slashdot Mirror
I think you pretty well summed up; there is no advantage.
I didn't even address the fact that there is a big difference between elegance and terseness. What you provided isn't event elegant, its terse. Elegance is a simple solution to a [often complex] problem where a non-obvious solution exists. What you provided is a terse, meaningless example of rails. Big difference. Compared to your example, a static page is elegant.
In a nut shell, you really need to stop projecting your own inadequacies and fears onto other people. And if you don't have anything to contribute, simply don't. In this case, you shouldn't have, on every point I mention.
Clearly, you need to learn what communication is all about. Until then you'll only ever waste everyone's time. Period.
Cessna is reportedly saving about $77,000 USD by manufacturing in China yet the SkyCatcher still costs >$100,000 USD to buy.
Half of every dollar spent on aviation in the US goes to cover liability. Also, Cessna, by far, has the largest markup of any of the light piston US manufacturers. From what I've read, the plane is targeting $111,000. If liability laws were brought into sane reason, that same aircraft could likely be had for something like $50,000. Yet one more reason to drown all the attorneys tomorrow. And if the FAA were revamped such that it more readily allowed free market competition, that price could likely be in the $30k range while at the same time making aviation safer for everyone; including commercial flights.
If anyone has any doubt about the evils of attorneys, don't ever forget we all pay a premium price for all things aviation related and in exchange for doing so, we suffer a higher death and injury rate as a direct result. The sad thing is, this is the literal truth. If you doubt me, go learn the difference between the avionics allowed in experimentals versus certified aircraft and you'll understand both how much cheaper and better the experimental equipment generally is in almost every aspect.
To me, a transit service should either make a profit and run as a real business, or get the hell out of my wallet. I have enough parasites after my income as it is. Oh, the greater good? Make wider roads and increase the speed limits!
For most countries, in fact every country I'm aware, rail is budgeted under national defense. This is especially true for the US as otherwise you can only move up to three tanks or more typical, one tank per plane. Doing so is extremely slow and expensive. As such, its generally only done in theater.
Without rail, most of the world's militaries are unable to respond to any significant threat. Accordingly, military is never run as a "real business" and its extremely common for commercially held, national defense interests to be heavily subsidized by government.
First, let me say thank you for responding in a coherent, non-threatened manner. Seriously and sincerely. Your reply seems well thought out and also seems to support much of what I suspected; though not to the level of detail you provide.
It appears it boils down to personal preference in that the language and underlying philosophy simply speaks to a developer. I can absolutely respect that. Not everyone thinks the same way and not everyone goes about solving problems the same way. So while Rubyists may be "cowboys and amateurs", they likely are more effective using Ruby vs Python as it likely jives more coherently with the way their brain solves problems. If true, professionally I am objectionable to Ruby; though personally I can understand their position.
Thanks again. Anecdotally you've seemingly confirmed my suspicions.
First, let me say thank you for responding in a coherent, non-threatened manner. Seriously and sincerely.
More compact you can see more code on screen especially when using
So why not use Perl over Ruby if terseness is such a significant factor? You'd be hard pressed to be more compact than Perl.
From one rant I received, some seem to confuse terseness with elegance. Once again I find I'm thanking you for for not being so easily confused.
I do agree, from what little Ruby I've seen, terseness is a clear attribute of Ruby and seems completely contrary to the Python approach, which is concise readability and no more, if I may be allowed my own python impression vs Ruby's, I guess, compact readability. Then again, Perl's terseness borders on encryption territory so perhaps Ruby has figured out the right combination of terseness without encryption. ;) But I cant help but wonder if that's not a personal preference. That's one of the reasons Perl doesn't particularly appeal to me and yet Perl has no end of champions.
Please don't get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing from with personal preference of a language. After all, a language which really speaks to a developer's way of thinking and problem solving goes a long way toward speeding development and problem solving. IMOHO, it likely aids in debugging comprehension too. But at the end of the day, IMOHO, that's not necessarily a language feature either; unless perhaps its universally true. And I'm not sure there is a clear indication of the later...
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Which means your entire rant is safely ignored as I clearly referred to DATA. The word idiot comes to mind.
Okay, something is entirely clear from the replies I'm getting. There is no advantage and anyone who questions is to be attacked, as that's the only recourse available to Ruby users.
That's sad.
Wow, you're trying so hard to stress your opinion, it's as if you feel... threatened?
Hmmm... seems you're clearly projecting here. I'm asking questions to learn and to understand the attraction vs python and the only way to do so is by comparison. In return you attack? Why are *you* so threatened? Clear and expressive communication is entirely the point of communicating; and especially so in written form. If effective communication is threatening to you, you should seriously take time to re-evaluate your position.
JRuby is faster than Python
Pretty strong proof you're extremely threatened...which is absolutely not my intent. Comparing JRuby to CPython is bluntly, idiotic and you know it. Jython exists for the very same reasons jRuby does. Anyone not threatened by Python, as you clearly are, is going to compare Jython to RJuby and nothing else. You don't see other people running around making such odd claims. When people say Ruby they mean Ruby. And when people say Python, they mean Python. What they don't mean is JRuby and Jython, as when they mean that they say that - as I clearly have done so.
get '/' do
"Hello world."
end
Elegant.
That may be elegant but its equally useless and slow. That example is exactly why we have static pages or at a minimum, cached pages. In other words, its not representative of anything anyone is likely to do with a Rails or TG like framework. That's why ORMs, templates, and all the other magic is so important.
I take it your position, if I may be so bold to read into your undertone, is Ruby's primary strength and elegance is strictly in web development?
Care to try take two and seriously address my questions in the above thread before you attempted to derail it? Hmm...wonder if the later part qualifies as a pun. ;)
Python is more mature than Ruby.
Much more....and it shows in the library from all accounts I've read.
But that's Python's only advantage.
Clearly not just from reading the comments left here. Clearly Python's maturity provides for code stability and far easier migrations to receive the performance benefits of newer VMs. I suspect, but don't know, the list is actually far, far longer, all of which to be attributed to Python's maturity.
Overall, Ruby is simply a more elegant and powerful language.
That's extremely subjective. The same can be said for Perl (and yes, I've done large Perl projects too), but at the end of the day, Perl is Perl and I'd take Python or Ruby any day of the week for 99% of the projects I do.
This is why you find people migrating from Python to Ruby, but very few going in the other direction.
That doesn't really carry much weight. In fact, from what I've seen, those that have migrated to Ruby from Python have largely migrated back - viewing Ruby as an interesting experiment. Furthermore, those that did migrate largely did so because of rails. Now that Python has a huge bucket of competing solutions, some arguably superior, especially in ORMs, the draw of Ruby vs Python seems to have been drastically reduced. The python vs ruby trends link someone else provided seems to also support this position. Which is to say, Ruby drastically grew, then shrunk, and has largely not changed after that.
And the maturity disparity is only a matter of time...
Actually its not. Its all relative. Python has a much, much larger developer and user base and as such, its far more likely the divide will widen over time. This divide includes the language features, general VM performance, and the library itself. Having said that, it does appear Ruby is likely to simply mature and perform good enough in the very near future, which is likely to widen its general appeal. Perhaps that's what you meant?
Also, JRuby is much more mature than Jython. If you want to work with Java libraries while still using a dynamic language, JRuby is the way to go.
While I don't have direct experience, Jython is very mature. It supports 100% of Python 1.5 and a good chunk of Python 1.6. I suspect, Jython is as mature as JRuby. If not, please clarify in what regards JRuby is significantly moreso and to what degree is sets it apart. Interestingly enough, if Jython is a significant factor (it likely is for only a tiny minority), IronPython leaves both JRuby and Jython in the dust in both scope and scale. Likewise, both Ruby and Python are actively getting some LLVM-love. For Python, Google is actively pushing the LLVM effort forward, made initial steps to make it an OS project, and has already made significant strides in the JIT-Python realm. Whereas, Ruby is still a community effort. Take from that what you will.
In short, your post has only convinced me, aside from Rails, Ruby has nothing to offer other than language uniqueness. Worth mentioning, a multitude of Python frameworks level the Rails advantage. That seems to all boil down to the only advantage Ruby has is personal choice and preference.
Which brings me full circle - what am I missing. Thus far, it seems nothing. Seriously - what is luring developers to use Ruby over Python?
It doesn't sound right because its not.
Ruby is still far slower than Python on the typical basis. Jython, JRuby, and Java all perform about the same when running on the JRE, with Java still leading by a noteworthy margin; which isn't exactly surprising.
I really never figured out exactly who Ruby appeals to. It seems those who would be interested in Ruby would also be attracted by the more mature Python.
So what projects and for what reasons are people picking Ruby over Python? Perhaps Python isn't even in the comparison? Is it just to be different? The antithesis of the heard mentality? Some critical feature Python is missing? Superior frameworks? Why?
Keep in mind, rail is by in large not against these projects. Most of these projects mean HS cargo, a chance to expand operations, and more competitive options for passenger service. Because of current rails, that also means opportunity for new rails into new locations, with tax payers largely paying for it - and new subsidies to support ongoing maintenance. New rail locations means new cargo income which allows them to compete with trucks in more locations. Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, what's good for rail is ALWAYS bad for airlines.
Remember, HS rail need not be passenger service alone. There are many states where just HS intrastate service would be wildly beneficial to everyone - except airlines.
and for hauling a ton of freight via each method.
There is a reason why the bulk of the world's continental cargo is carried via train. Planes are got even close to being competitive. Next comes diesel truck. Then comes plane. That's why it will cost you $20-$40 for next day delivery of a tiny package, as it almost always travels by relatively expensive plane.
Notice most large distribution centers have rails on the back side of the building. Trains deliver whereby products are then placed on trucks for local and semi-local delivery.
I forget the exact numbers but trains provide something like $1 per ton per mile or something like that. I believe the only thing which is cheaper than trains per ton-mile is shipping per cargo ship.
The problem is getting land rights from every county boundary.
And that's why eminent domain exists.
pittance in return just won't work in the U.S.
You're right, that's why generally they are offered fair market value, or something that's at least reasonable, and not a pittance. Please note I did not phrase things in absolutes.
Everytime I read something like this I ask myself, "Why not in the US."
It has come up many, many times before but each time the airline lobbies kill it dead. Its really amazing just how powerful this collection of interests has proved to be over time. Generally speaking, they almost always get everything they want.
The general rule of thumb is, if the airline lobbies want something, its almost a sure thing to be bad for you, me, and Joe consumer.
If I had mod points I'd certainly give them to you!
"In a few years an automated drone will arrive in orbit to bathe the Na'Vi villages in a neutron death-ray and solve the problem forever."
Is that the modern pox blanket?
Perhaps you've never heard of the words "straw man", and that's why you argue against imagined, untenable positions?
If bullshit is the best counter available, you've completely confirmed the question.
I am ready to strangle people with iPhones on AT&T. It is such a joke. From Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Houston, and New York, I talk to people with crappy sound, disconnects within about 3-4 minutes (90% of the time), and pure constant frustration trying to communicate with these people.
Hate to tell you this but you just made the argument that either iPhone is a complete piece of shit or AT&T's 3G is. I have my Android phone on AT&T (sans 3G) and very rarely have problems. Quality is great. In fact, I typically have problems with OTHER users of other phones dropping off the call or with static on their end. Furthermore, coverage has actually been pretty good. AT&Ts coverage, including basic data (GPRS/EDGE) is markedly improved over just a couple of years back.
If anything, either the iPhone completely sucks as a phone, which may be, or AT&T's 3G network completely sucks. Regardless, AT&T with an EDGE/GPRS phone provides pretty good coverage and their EDGE data rates in most markets is actually pretty fast for what it is. Having said that, after using EDGE in Houston, I must say their EDGE data rates seem more comparable to GPRS - its SLOW in Houston. Thankfully I don't live there. Hopefully their 3G service there more than makes up for it.
2) How much shit people will put up with for a shiny iPhone.
From what I understand, that's why Verizon's Droid made #1 on their gadget list of the year and why the iPhone is #4. Simply put, Apple didn't improve anything on the phone other than make it faster than the previous version and play catch up with (at the time) anticipated Android features - no joke. Combine that with limited carrier options, iffy 3G, high number of disconnects, etc., Droid is an easy pick over that of an iPhone. And with so many yet higher end Android phones (far beyond the current iPhone) coming available on so many carriers, the iPhone suddenly looks very unattractive - unless they suddenly start copying Android - again - for their next iPhone release, and make it available on additional carriers.
Actually I did read your comment. Thus my reply. Its your reply which is down right puzzling - which suggests you didn't read. Talk about irony.
What the fuck is with this need to bash countries? Especially when it's so far off the mark.
Why is stating fact considered, "bashing"? The FACT is, the stated fact is exactly how car companies advertise to consumers because of exactly that fact. Hell, in the US, car purchases are actually considered an impulse purchase (80%+ of all vehicle sales). Its an impulse purchase because its about both the car and the salesmen stroking the consumer's ego rather than the merits of the vehicle. The really sad thing is, few consumers actually realize they purchased a vehicle because they are a complete idiot rather than the merits of the vehicle. Because you consider the stated fact to be bashing, it strongly suggests you easily fall into the ignorant 80% category.
Perhaps the realization you purchase vehicles out of looks and ignorance rather than merit, function, and suitability, is a crushing blow to your ego and that's why you believe he's bashing? Its a rhetorical question - frankly I don't care one way or the other about why you purchase vehicles. I just wanted to make it clear, the GP's factual statement is not bashing and that's the facts. Regardless, you're never going to get away from small penis envy where people over compensate, whereas that's true around the world, but singling out G7 countries is hardly bashing.
Great questions considering its all been answered and your assertion is known to false.
Next time, just say you have no clue what the hell is going on, want to irrationally rant regardless of the facts, and have no interest in debating and/or learning. It will save everyone lots of time.
Not only that, but it's become a rather strong rallying cry in support of General Aviation - you know, private planes and all?
You read my mind.
If the government wanted to see a new renaissance in general aviation, they could pass a number of equitable liability and FAA laws which could lower aviation costs by as much as 75% (with 50% reduction more easily doable quickly and safely) - literally tomorrow. This in turn would directly stimulate the economy. Everyone wins except for piece of shit attorneys and their frivolous lawsuits. Contrary to the frivolous lawsuit laws and general perception, frivolous lawsuits are rampant in all things related to aviation because they prey on the ignorance of the general population to not recognize how frivolous their suite actually is.
But with airlines and attorneys with so many politicians in their pockets, sane, safer legislative changes are simply not likely. The simple fact is, the skies are literally more dangerous, including commercial travel, because of both of these lobbying groups.
As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving. Typically, private planes get me there in somewhere between 25% and 33% the time to drive, and for trips between 100 and 750 miles is a very competitive way to go.
Don't forget, contrary to the constant rhetoric you hear, flying GA can be much, much cheaper than flying commercially, especially when flying to destinations which do no have major regional hubs. In fact, flying GA can be cheaper than the required "puddle jumper" flight alone on the last hop from a regional hub to the more remote destination. And when a GA flight is less than 600-1000 miles (depending on plane), it too is typically faster than traveling commercial airlines. This becomes even more so as additional security theater is added at airports.
I don't land at big airports, I land at small ones that exist in nearly every community over 5,000 to 10,000 people or so. At these airports, delays really don't exist. There are usually not more than 2 or 3 other planes active at any given time, often none.
With the steady stream of lies coming from commercial airlines, many people falsely believe small airlines are the cause of many delays at major airports. This is completely false. Truthfully, small planes are actually the cause of huge decreases in airport delays. Small airplanes more typically service the smaller airports which in turn means less traffic is required at the major airports which commercial airlines use. Additionally, small airports are typically closer to the actual destination. Because of proximity, small airplanes actually save fuel compared to flying into a major hub and then adding the extra required driving. This is because the typical destination is often 20-60 miles away from the commercial airport. The typical savings don't include the fuel savings of extra delays which would be more common if these people were flying commercial rather than private GA. The simple fact is, GA offloads delays from these large airports, far more than the little GA traffic which do go into these large airports.
Small airports almost inevitably put me very close to where I want to go, anyway! Rather than drive 1.5 hours after landing, I get a taxi for the 3-5 mile ride.
Exactly! And some small airports even provide free loaner cars if your business is only a couple of hours or so.
And, contrary to the constant stream of lies told by mainstream media, who are actually talking about corporate jets and not GA as a whole, light GA typically seems fuel economy comparable to the typical vehicles on the road. Some airplanes actually see economy better than the average vehicle on the road. And a small subset actually sees considerably better economy than the average vehicle on the road. Best of all, at the given fuel
Nice counter, countering nothing and saying nothing.
You've pretty well confirmed everything I've said.
What an uninformative dick - and the moderators who modded you up are complete idiots.
Thanks to you, I know nothing more I didn't already know and everyone who has read your post is now dumber for it.