Useless idea. Kids would give their clothes to others to carry for them. Block the RFID if they wanted to go off the grid. Honestly, how long does it take for the regular teacher to run down the names of their students to see if they're there.
If there was a fire, do you want to teachers to manually check each kid got out alive or just rely on a tag in a piece of clothing. A trapped kid's RFID signal may not reach sensors, a kid in gym class would have different clothes on, etc.
You're right. Since it is not a perfect system and can be defeated, let's not have it. Of course, using that logic, I suggest you turn off your computer right away. It can be hacked you know. I can't believe we even invented these things. All you have to do is turn them off and they are worthless! Now, speaking of devices that can track you, about your cell phone...
If there was a fire, do you want to teachers to manually check each kid got out alive or just rely on a tag in a piece of clothing. A trapped kid's RFID signal may not reach sensors, a kid in gym class would have different clothes on, etc.
And a trapped kid's RFID signal MIGHT reach sensors. It sure stands a hell of a lot better chance than a kid with no RFID sensors on him!
All the airports should care about is "The current individual is not a likely terrorist," not that "The current individual is so and so".
Actually, I think that the airport needs to know if the current individual is a known terrorist. It's too easy to get a fake ID from a distant state and board a plane under the assumed ID. Otherwise, (your terrorist name here) could shave, change clothes and get a fake ID that reads "Jose Garcia" from Arizona and travel freely across the US. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, we have watch lists for a reason. What's the point if it's so easy to assume an identity?
This system would end up being used generally as a national ID card, and without careful oversight (that the system is completely lacking), will create a trail that 5, 10, or 15 years from now could be used for nefarious purposes. Privacy is not just a governmental issue - powerful private interests would also be quite interested in data-mining your entire past easily.
You mean like your credit score? Sorry, but if you are worried about data being kept for years, too late. It's already happening. Either way, there is no Constitutional right to anonymity. Keeping records on you is not a violation of your civil rights.
Recall that under the Weimar Republic, there was no danger in identifying your ethnicity to the state. People weren't worried that in ten years time there would be a new system, under which such information would be automated with IBM's help to herd people into death camps. If you had refused to fill out those id papers at that time, you would have been laughed at as a paranoid conspiracy nut.
The Constitution does protect you regardless of your race. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. And again, they ask these questions on the US Census every 10 years. Your race is on your current driver's license and the feds have access to that. What's the difference?
So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but... So?
If the government wanted to track you liquor store habits, they could just look at your Visa records. Besides, do you think that all liquor stores, grocery stores, and bars would be forced to purchase card readers and Internet access and scan every single patron that walked through their doors?
I think the idea was to make it easier for airport employees to prove your ID is real before letting you on the flight. That's impossible with 50 different ID systems.
Because little ol' Iran is such a huge threat to the colossal USA...
I guess that is the difference between my country and wherever you are from. We will fight to defend those that can not defend themselves. We don't just think of ourselves. We believe that human rights come from God, not man and it is our duty to see that the people of the world are given the chance. We are not content to stand idly by as millions of innocents get slaughtered (Rwanda, Darfur) where as the UN, the organization mean to stop countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons and was created to stop genocide can do little more than write a strongly worded letter.
USA, who, I might add, has the most history of nuclear weapons abuse in the history of mankind.
Uh, we dropped two bombs on a country that was throughly defeated, but refused to surrender. Dropping those two bombs (what you call abuse), while horrific to the peoples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, saved the lives of millions who would have suffered through the relentless bombing. All of Japan would have looked like Berlin at the end of WWII. So, what you call "abuse" actually saved cities like Tokyo. For that matter, there were parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unscathed by the attacks. Places like Dresden did not fare so well. Because of those two bombs, Japan came out of WWII a lot better than Germany. Or do you think a relentless carpet bombing, a naval blockade that would starve the Japanese citizens, and a continuation of the bloody island hopping campaign leading up to another Omaha Beach in Japan would have been better for both sides? Sorry, but saying we "abused" nuclear weapons is WWII is like saying we "abused" the aircraft carrier.
But why am I trying to convince you? The USA gives more to feed the poor around the world than all other nations combined. We liberate populations where people like you want sanctions that starve those same people. You have such a difficult time convincing yourself that you are right, you have to rewrite history to make those that you have unfounded hatred for into the most evil of peoples to justify your rage. You will stand up for a country that hangs suspected homosexuals, condones and even encourages wife beating, forces complete submission of women as a federal law, openly supports terrorists and has threatened multiple times to use nuclear weapons to destroy a country that has never attacked it. All while fighting against a country that has human rights as its foundation and equal rights written into its most sacred laws, that feeds the world and fights to spread freedom beyond its borders. And you don't see anything wrong with what you do.
The US gives the land its soldiers bleed and die for back to the people who live there rather than making it a conquered territory. Has any other country ever done that?
You can't solve everything with brute force either.
That's why we waited for 12 years and through 19 UN resolutions before going into Iraq. We tried every option conceivable before using overwhelming force, including the use of limited force. Nothing worked. I guess it didn't matter as some people think that force is absolutely never the answer. These are the people that would rather learn German see the rest of Jews sent to the showers than to actually go to war.
Same thing is happening in Iran today.
Those people are used to strong leaders . So it is likely that any democracy you install will eventually degrade into a dictatorship. Granted , it will be one that supports the US , but it's still no benefit to the people.
and one that won't invade its neighbors, at least. Still, we have to try.
...more likely the other way around. The USA is the world's aggressor now, you know.
It's a shame that we are not more so. Maybe we could have stopped things like the Darfur or Rwanda massacres. Then again, even though we do have the world's largest military, we can't do it all without a little help. Hell, if we even got a little moral support it would go a long way. Instead, we get people from pussy nations like yours that want to debate everything at the UN while men, women and children are dying... quite literally. When was the last time a UN resolution saved anyone's life? When was the last time a debate convinced a dictator that holding and torturing political prisoners isn't a good thing? When was the last time the UN sent peace keepers to a nation and was actually able to keep the peaces. Last I heard, they either stood around within their walls and watched thugs steal the food the UN was trying to provide, run at the first sign of danger, or... and this is my favorite, rape the people they were sent to protect. Sorry to bring you back to real world, but sometimes you have to kick some ass to get things done. Asking nicely doesn't always work.
Finally, if you read your comment, you are defending a country that gives no human rights to its citizens. You are defending a country that literally rolled out tanks against an unarmed population. It limits the news, strips the Internet of any information that may be critical of the government and not just invades, but occupies foreign countries with no intention of ever leaving. I am the only one who sees the irony here?
And conservitards gave us the TSA. At this point, I'd far more trust even the dumbest ideas from the left in favor of the unamerican schemes from the right.
So you're comparing TSA, the group that searches luggage when traveling to groups that want to tell you what and how much you can eat or what you can do in your home!!!???!!! For Pete's sake, if you don't like TSA, don't fly! You can drive or take the friggin' bus! The ONLY time I see TSA is when I go to the air port. I eat every day!
TSA is does not restrict your freedom. Groups that want to tell you what and how much to eat do! Just because something is created by "conservitards" (as you call them) doesn't mean they are automatically worse than something created by liberals. Don't let your political views cloud your judgment. That's when you become a radical or a "winger". Get a grip for you own good.
Somalia and Afghanistan have a great many guns, however I don't know of anyone who would consider them models of public safety. Public safety seems to me to be far more dependent on a healthy society where economic mobility is available, public institutions like courts and schools function, and resources like water and food are plentiful. Of course, you're correct that all societies have firearms available at some level, and they can be useful for self-defense, but if you suddenly need to use one, it doesn't make any sense to say that you're in a much safer society.
Even in places like Somalia and Afghanistan, you are safer with a gun than without.
I own a gun, and I learned to use it properly in the military. I've shot recreationally since I was a teenager. I recognize that they are just a tool, and that good or bad intent lies behind the trigger, not in it. I also acknowledge that it is your right to arm yourself and provide for your your own defense. Of course, all rights entail responsibilities, such as the obligation to learn to handle a gun safely, and to learn the legal ramifications of its use. That said, I'm glad that you don't own a gun, and I wish you would stop trying to be an advocate for them, because your post makes you sound like you don't have the emotional maturity to own a water pistol.
I too was in the Military. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all invaders, foreign and domestic. My point was not to defend firearms, but to defend the Constitution and the people who take advantage of it.
Also, I hate bigots. I ate people that apply prejudice and stereotypes to anyone. It is no different to call Americans with guns nutjobs than it is to call Mexicans fruitpickers or black people porch riders. All three are equally repugnant and I will stand up against the racists who think that way, even if people like you assume that it shows emotional immaturity on my part.
Yes, I could have put it a bit more gently, but racists, bigots, and elitists put me in a rage. Unfortunately, it showed.
Well done on so spectacularly confirming that GP's use of "nut job" was completely fair.
Well, according to the GGP, gun owners are nut-jobs. Owning a gun is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Had he said "people that speak freely are nut-jobs" I would have offered to shout him down. Just like when people say religious people are nut-jobs, I offer to pray for them. He chose the Constitutionally protected weapon. I just showed its usefulness.
Or, maybe we'll just shoot you since it is safe to assume that you are the type to bring a knife to a gun fight. GP might be, but he's not the one the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect you from. Your post doesn't help the stereotype that gun rights advocates only want to look badass. The point was to show that in a society with firearms (in other words, all of them), you are much safer if you are one of the ones with the firearms. You are safer still if you live in a society that allows everyone to have firearms. Then you don't know who has them and who doesn't.
For the record, I don't own a gun. I'm protected by the idea that any house on my street may have a "nut-job" waiting inside. The thieves, rapists, kidnappers or whatever have no idea if I'm one of those "nut-jobs" or not.
Oh dear god... so, as long as all you nut-job Americans have guns, it's all ok.
What a fuckin' elitist asshole!
It's probably best that you are not an American. First, you're too stupid to be rich enough to hang out with elitist crowd in your gated community. That means that working class nut-jobs like myself will get to kick your ass every day until you're attitude is in proper adjustment.
you're not safe because you all have guns, and if you think you can sit back and let things happen just because you're packing heat, my god you're so very, very wrong.
Or, maybe we'll just shoot you since it is safe to assume that you are the type to bring a knife to a gun fight. Of course, we'll pop a few off into your knee caps first. When you stop screaming we'll ask, "Think you'd be safer if you had a gun? I sure feel safe right now."
Surprised chemistry sets didn't go this route long ago, what with their potential to put together explosives approaching that of a couple firecrackers combined! Warm fuzzies.
I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.
Right! Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets. The Feds know this. First, chemistry sets were not banned, they were neutered. They were neutered long before 9-11. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with liability.
I understand that it's cool to bash the president and blame Bush for everything. However, this is not one of those cases. This isn't Bush's fault. If anything, it's John Edwards, or at least lawyers. Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that slingshots are hard to find, because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, kid's hands.
The people that are banning "dangerous" chemicals in chemical sets are the same people that forced MacDonald's to stop asking you if you wanted it "super sized", and the same people that are trying to ban you from smoking in a bar, or your car, and in your home, and outside... and so on. It's the same people who make planters put a label on a bag of peanuts that says, "danger, contains peanuts". It's the people that mandate seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These people are not conservatives (although there are some conservative nannies that say I can't drink beer in a bar after 2:00am). Nope! These are the same people that say things like "We are going to take things away from you for the common good".
Googling "nanny state chemistry set" took me to this article from the NY times. It's in response to an op-ed piece about the removal of chemistry sets. The article date, May 13, 1999. About 2.25 years BEFORE 9-11 and BEFORE the War on Terror. So, please, stop blaming this on Bush or the War On Terror. This was happening long before any of that!
From TFA:
[Author's Note: This article is primarily a result of my frustration in trying to acquire a few hundred grams of potassium carbonate for an electrolyte solution.] I understand the author's frustration, but he should really know who's at fault before he passes blame. If banning chemsitry sets were about keeping dangerous chemicals out of the hands of terrorists, then Clorox bleach, Windex, and pool chemicals would have been banned with it.
I had several chemistry sets as a kid and spent many, many hours conducting experiments, often to my own harm (poisonous gases, chloral hydrate, etc...:-) High school chemistry almost got me arrested, and led in part to my expulsion from public school.
And this is the problem. It's not terrorism that is causing these things to disappear. It's the fact that we've become a nanny state, and it's not conservatives that are the cause! You can't get toys for your kids that may have pointed edge. You can't get toys for your kids that may fit down a wind pipe or break off into sharp pieces. This isn't because of GW Bush, it's because of lawyers. Any time a kid gets hurt by a toy, the company gets sued into oblivion, whether it was the company's fault or not! It becomes cheaper to settle out of court for $100,000 than it does not fight it out.
Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that sling shots are hard to find. It's not because they present a terrorism threat, it's because they are dangerous. The first time some kid mixes something that he wasn't supposed to makes an explosive, corrosive mixture that "puts an eye out", the company that made that kit gets sued. If it were about terror, this would be an article about how hard it is to find good pool chemicals!
It's the same nannies that want to tell you that you can't smoke in your house, or you can't have a big mac or supersize your fries. These people don't usually tend to be conservatives. It's happens to be the people that say things like, "we are going to take things away from you for the common good."
It also potentially eliminates style upgrades. People needlessly consume by purchasing new vehicles endlessly. They also crash vehicles when they are driving them. Public transportation has the potential to be substantially safer, and it often is. This reduces the amount of money society must pay. If I didn't have to suffer for your decisions, then I would agree with you - in principle, this is about your freedom. In practice, this is about your freedom to crap on everyone else.
First, the government has no business dictating my "style". If paying for style is a bad thing, then why not mandate government uniforms for everyone? How about mandatory community housing? What about beauty care? Why should women be allowed to waste all that money on make up, manicures and hair care? Living in a free society means that we are free. I'm just as free to put spinners on my Yugo as you are choose what you do for a living. My car dealer, mechanic, body shop and auto-tint dealer would all disagree with your assessment that my POV (Personally Owned Vehicle) is a waste. My car feeds their families. That's how economies work. My spending money on my car is not wasted. It is paid to someone else who either makes the parts or installs them. And when I wreck my car, society doesn't pay, I do in the form of insurance or directly. Again, this money is not lost. It pays for that little British gecko and all the people who work for him.
Such a situation is still predicated upon assistance from the government, which maintains the interstate highway system, or at least (kind of) funds it. What right does the government have to put superhighways across my country!? The nerve! I am being forced to pay for people to have transportation in Texas! THIS WILL NOT STAND!
First, the Interstate system in Texas is used to carry California Cherries to Florida and Mexican grown lettuce to... well everywhere. I agree that rail could do the job better in some instances, but that's not reality right now. Also, there are many truck drivers who would disagree.
Anyway, what is the biggest price-fixing cartel on the planet? You guessed it, the oil industry.
Since we are talking about an electric car vs public transportation, I don't see how this matters.
HOV lanes potentially help fight pollution, except that people often buy a new car for no reason other than getting into the lane. This results in a new vehicle purchase, which leads to future new vehicle production, which causes additional energy consumption, and is actually thus environmentally unfriendly. This is not least because the vast majority of vehicles which qualify are gasoline-electric hybrids, and the production of their batteries is horribly energy intensive, thus causing vast quantities of pollution. HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. It means that only cars with three or more people can drive in the HOV lane. Buses also take this lane. It's kinda like rail that cars can also use. And while some places may allow low emission vehicles on the HOV lanes, it is not the purpose of the lane.
By the way, HOV lanes do NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, to alleviate traffic pressure. Well, since HOV lanes are actually built by public transportation departments for buses, then I guess you kinda shot down the whole public transport traffic benefit. However, I disagree, sort of. While I feel that it would be better to open two lanes to all traffic rather than a single HOV lane, HOV lanes do encourage car pooling. Look around the next time you are stuck in traffic. How many of those cars have a single person in them? How much do you think traffic could be reduced if each car had two people, halving the number of cars on the road? That is the type of think HOV lanes are meant to encourage... well that and allow buses their own lane.
Having the option of both is a pipe dream because public transportation systems fail if people do not use them. If no one wants to use public transport, then
Apple tried allowing Mac clones once, before the resurrection of his Steveness.
The result was a significant loss in Apple hardware sales, and that loss was not even close to made up in OS licensing.
I remember. I supported those machines. (actually, I was the tech support monitor... but who cares)
Without knowing what Apple was charging those clone manufacturers I can not comment on how close that licensing would be compared to direct OS sales. Still, I doubt that Apple was charging the clone makers what the OS costs the end user ($129 single, 199 family). Also, I don't know if that program lasted long enough to make a difference. The program was canceled before customer had a chance to go out and buy an upgraded copy of the OS. Finally, now that Apple is selling x86 machines, they would be selling software for a huge percentage of the PC market, not just PPC machines.
Since most Apple users buy Apple machines because of the style that goes into the design, I don't see that changing much. Macs sell because they are works of art, not because of what's inside them. I see OSX being much more competition to the Windows market than I do the PC clone makers being competition for Apple's Mac line. Throw out the software, and I still see Macs selling about as well as do today on looks alone.
The Apple image alone is enough to allow OSX to outsell Windows. Windows is known as buggy, stuffy, business like, complicated and drab. OSX is known as cool, hip, flashy, easy to use, family friendly and... well, personal. Apple has silhouettes of beautiful people dancing, a rabid fan base and spokes people ranging from Bono to Rush Limbaugh (although Rush is not paid, he's just one of those rabid fans). Microsoft has Steve Ballmer, a bald, sweaty fat guy, and Bill Gates, the poster child for all things dork (not Geek, but DORK). Because of these reasons, I see Apple taking over the OS business in the same way the MS did just 15 years ago.
Apple would have to amortise Mac OS X development over millions of copies. Would you buy Mac OS X instead of MS Windows if it cost ten times as much? Who would? Uh, that would be about $2000 per system. Is Apple selling OSX for that now? You can purchase a Mac with OSX for about $600. How much of that goes toward software development? Provided that they get the full $129.00, that would leave about $470 for hardware, advertising, profit, shipping, manufacture and so on. So I think that Apple makes more profit off of the OS when sold outright than when bundled into the cost of a new Mac. Of course, this does not include whatever is made from iLife subscriptions, those nifty picture books that are sold, iTunes bundling and so on...
Finally, while MS needs to design their OS's from the ground up, the core of OSX was done for them. It's UNIX on the inside. All Apple has to do is tweak it, write the GUI for system management and any apps that they wish to tack on. The hard part is done. All that Apple really needs to worry about is the flash.
First, I don't see Mac sales taking much of a hit. People that buy Macs are not the type to build their own PC's or install an OS that is not supported by their computer maker (Dell, for example). Most Mac buyers don't want to deal with that type of stuff. The rest buy Mac because of the style. These people would continue to buy Macintosh machines.
Where I think Apple would make their money is from people that are purchasing Vista right now. How many boxed copies of Vista have been sold. With all the bad press that Vista has, don't you think that OSX could put a significant dent in that number, if not a overtake it? It is not unreasonable for me to see Apple selling more copies of OSX to home users than Microsoft is selling Vista. Throw in the number of computer makers that are starting sell their systems without Windows, plus the increase in licensing and other software sales (iLive, MacOffice...). Of course, this is just the home market. Next will come the office. Once Apple gets their foot into the office, things really take off. First, there will be the increase in Mac sales (hardware). Then comes sale of OSX server software and services (it is UNIX, isn't it?) and the hardware to run it all.
So plug all those numbers into the formula and that 32% US and 10% worldwide seems pretty easy to come by. With Vista tanking, right now is the best time to start selling OSX to the masses. This opportunity won't last forever. MS will get their shit together eventually.
I could not disagree more. Do you think that OSX is better than Windows? Most people do. How many of these people would be willing to pay a little bit more for OSX than they do for Windows? Again, I bet most of them would. So how long do you think it would take OSX to overtake Windows? My guess would be within 10 years. Combine this with server sales (it is UNIX after all) and maybe even an office product and you have an Apple that is making more than Microsoft and a Jobs that is richer than Gates.
Of course, the Mac business would take a hit, I don't think it would go under and any loss in the hardware business would be more than made up from the OS sales. People will still by Macs the same way they do today. Hell, there are people that buy Macs and install Windows on them. I had a Mac and I ran Yellow Dog Linux on it. Mac hardware can stand on its own. People know that Apple makes quality machines and are willing to pay the premium. Those that don't care much about the quality are sold on the style that oozes from every Apple design. Of course, the iPod sales wouldn't exactly be going away either.
Part of the reason why OS X is liked & so stable is because it can fairly easily be tested on every possible variant of Mac hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to test every possible PC setup (which is why they dont bother trying). They release early beta versions and use the in-built phone home features to report bugs.
Even with no support included they would be swamped with users complaining that it didn't work or was unstable for any number of reasons.
That's why most operating systems (Windows, Linux, etc) release a HCL, or Hardware Compatibility List that has all the hardware that has been tested to work with that OS. If it is not on the list, then it is not supported, end of story. Oh, it may work, but if it doesn't, you're SOL. Buy something from the list.
Of course, if Apple released OSX to non-Apple machines, they would take a hit on their hardware sales. However, I feel that selling enough copies of OSX to run on, say 30% of the world's desktops would more than make up for any loss in the hardware market. Besides, Apple's hardware has a certain level of class that people are willing to pay for. Look at what the iPod offers compared to other non-Apple MP3 players. Then compare the price. Apple is still selling the snot out of iPods at a much higher price than the competition because they own the cool factor. I don't see Mac sales dropping much if OSX were released. I would see OSX overtaking Windows within 10 years though!
The public transportation system I described is quite real. It was from my experiences riding in Chicago. I did not, however, mention the weather. It was 15 below 0 Fahrenheit that morning. I think it "warmed" up to about 5 by the time I got home. With wind gusts up to 30 mph, I'm not even going to guess at the wind chill. I had to stand outside for at least 15 minutes each way waiting for the train. So, no. It was not a strawman.
This isn't about your freedom.
First, the GP said my attitude needed to be changed. Why does that sound like the kind of job a re-education camp would perform? This guy is saying I don't even have the freedom to think what I want. My God! If I'm not free to think, what am I free to do?
This has everything to do with my freedom. When the government controls how I get places, then the government controls everything. Where I live, what I can carry, when I can travel, where I can go and how much it will cost me are all controlled by government rules. Sorry, but giving the government that much control over my life is not what I would call freedom.
Public transportation works in Europe. Granted, there are geographical differences as well as cultural differences. If you spent enough time in the right European cities, you would probably see systems where public transportation is working.
Maybe, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is all government controlled. I hear that their system is the best in the world, but that doesn't mean I want it forced on me here in the US. What advantage does a public transport system have over privately owned non-polluting automobiles?
Here is one case study... I spent a year in Poznan, Poland (pop 567,882). In that city, there are 20 trams (streetcar) lines and 57 bus lines. The trams run center-city and through the more dense areas, with buses making up the difference.
Poland? Did they used to be communist? Aren't these people used to having the government control their lives? That takes me back to my original point. Take new Orleans for example. Katrina was on the way and the people with cars left. No government assistance required. Those that didn't have cars went to the Superdome and were stuck. We all know how that turned out. If the government gets stuck, you're out of luck! (a counter example would be the evacuation of Houston about a month after Katrina in the way of another hurricane. There was a traffic jam from Houston to Austin, about 200 miles of bumper to bumper cars. There is better planning now for such a situation.)
I'll push all that aside for now. I live in a city with about 5,000 people. It's about 20 miles from where I work, a city of about 656,000. How do I get from one transportation system to the other? How long will that take? I work from 10:00am until 7:00pm. Sometimes I have to work late. Does public transportation run until 9:00pm? Does it run until midnight? Do I want to be on public transportation after midnight?
While some own vehicles, the public transportation system has high ridership, to the point that during rush-hour one must be careful not to be crushed...
A problem I don't experience in my car. Although, I may be crushed by another car, but that is a different story.
People are not living by loud trains, but they are more comfortable with walking and riding bikes, and there are sidewalks (something quite rare in the USA). It may be 1-2 kilometers to the nearest tram stop, and that is perfectly fine by the city inhabitants.
How was that walk in the rain? Any better in the snow? How about freezing rain? Granted, I don't like driving in bad weather either, but at least I'm not standing in it.
That said, I lived right next to the tram on the 6th floor of a high-rise, and hardly noticed the tram. It wasn't much, if at all, worse than the traffic of an average suburban street in the USA.
Improving public transport will reduce pollution, congestion and accidents. Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.
That's the joy of living in a free country. I'm free to have whatever attitude I like without people like you telling me what to think. Then again, why would someone as superior as yourself care about the people who live in communities that can not afford public transportation like Findlay OH for example. What about the good people of Springfield IL or Houma LA? Even in large cities like Houston TX have areas where people work that are not downtown. Many people work in the outskirts of town. What good is the Metro Park-and-Ride that takes people from parking lots in the outskirts of town to downtown Houston to people who work at HP (formerly Compaq), in north Houston. What good would a public rail system to and from downtown Austin do for the people who work at Dell in Round Rock?
See, that's the problem. People like you want to charge outrageous taxes to build a public transport system so people can get to and from the center of town. What that does is drive up taxes to the point where no new businesses can afford to be downtown. When they try to build on the outskirts, you claim that they are going to destroy the environment by building out there or that they are contributing to urban sprawl or whatever. Finally, the company says screw you people and moves to a friendlier are such as Houston or Austin, or they say screw it all and simply outsource their workforce to someplace like India or Mexico where there is simply no environmental regulation whatsoever. So while you think you are saving the world, you are actually playing a large part in destroying it. Instead of wanting clean, plug-in, quick charging cars that I can use to drive to and from work, you think that the government should be taxing businesses out of this country so I can ride in cramped quarters with a bunch of human flu-factories to my soon-to-be outsourced job.
Of course, this also forces people to live as close as possible to the rail or bus station. Few people can afford to drive to the place where public transportation picks them up. Then they are paying for a car, insurance, parking AND for public transportation. This means we'll all have to live in cramped, overpriced apartments next to the rail station. Nothing says dinner at home like the 5:15 L roaring by, squealing as it bounces from side to side. So much for Americans owning their own homes or making a life better for themselves. They must now live in planned communities, have to rely on the government to take them place to place, rely on the government to build and maintain public spaces for their kids to play in, only be able to buy a day or two's worth of groceries because they don't have a car trunk to put them all in.
Of course, don't even get me started on what will happen if an evacuation were to occur. Without a car, where will you go? Maybe you could go to the local sports stadium and wait for the government to take you away from there.
Is that your idea of 'land of the free?' Wouldn't it be better if I could just have my clean car AND my freedom? Isn't that what freedom is all about, being able to live as I want to live? I can take care of myself. I don't want the government proving for my every need.
i think you missed the part where it says "street"-car. 130km/hr is a little too fast for city streets...
No, but I meant for a car-car... just that piece of data didn't make it into the post. Improving street cars will do little to reduce pollution. What is needed is improvements that will allow for electric car-cars to become practical, and that was my meaning.
please do not try to debate me on either GW or Iraq
Down-modding just because you disagree is against the moderator guidelines. Why not post a reply, instead? I can never tell if this sort of thing is irony or hypocrisy. We need a new word for this - hyporonicrisy. The "oron" in the middle is a coincidence. The point of the post was not to debate Iraq or global warming. Those were examples of how it is really the media that is in charge of how and what information is reported on. I used examples from both sides of the political spectrum to show that it is not a partisan comment. Also, I didn't want to be downmodded from both sides!
Slashdot Mirror
Useless idea.
Kids would give their clothes to others to carry for them.
Block the RFID if they wanted to go off the grid.
Honestly, how long does it take for the regular teacher to run down the names of their students to see if they're there.
If there was a fire, do you want to teachers to manually check each kid got out alive or just rely on a tag in a piece of clothing. A trapped kid's RFID signal may not reach sensors, a kid in gym class would have different clothes on, etc.
You're right. Since it is not a perfect system and can be defeated, let's not have it. Of course, using that logic, I suggest you turn off your computer right away. It can be hacked you know. I can't believe we even invented these things. All you have to do is turn them off and they are worthless! Now, speaking of devices that can track you, about your cell phone...
If there was a fire, do you want to teachers to manually check each kid got out alive or just rely on a tag in a piece of clothing. A trapped kid's RFID signal may not reach sensors, a kid in gym class would have different clothes on, etc.
And a trapped kid's RFID signal MIGHT reach sensors. It sure stands a hell of a lot better chance than a kid with no RFID sensors on him!
All the airports should care about is "The current individual is not a likely terrorist," not that "The current individual is so and so".
Actually, I think that the airport needs to know if the current individual is a known terrorist. It's too easy to get a fake ID from a distant state and board a plane under the assumed ID. Otherwise, (your terrorist name here) could shave, change clothes and get a fake ID that reads "Jose Garcia" from Arizona and travel freely across the US. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, we have watch lists for a reason. What's the point if it's so easy to assume an identity?
This system would end up being used generally as a national ID card, and without careful oversight (that the system is completely lacking), will create a trail that 5, 10, or 15 years from now could be used for nefarious purposes. Privacy is not just a governmental issue - powerful private interests would also be quite interested in data-mining your entire past easily.
You mean like your credit score? Sorry, but if you are worried about data being kept for years, too late. It's already happening. Either way, there is no Constitutional right to anonymity. Keeping records on you is not a violation of your civil rights.
Recall that under the Weimar Republic, there was no danger in identifying your ethnicity to the state. People weren't worried that in ten years time there would be a new system, under which such information would be automated with IBM's help to herd people into death camps. If you had refused to fill out those id papers at that time, you would have been laughed at as a paranoid conspiracy nut.
The Constitution does protect you regardless of your race. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. And again, they ask these questions on the US Census every 10 years. Your race is on your current driver's license and the feds have access to that. What's the difference?
So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but... So?
If the government wanted to track you liquor store habits, they could just look at your Visa records. Besides, do you think that all liquor stores, grocery stores, and bars would be forced to purchase card readers and Internet access and scan every single patron that walked through their doors?
I think the idea was to make it easier for airport employees to prove your ID is real before letting you on the flight. That's impossible with 50 different ID systems.
Because little ol' Iran is such a huge threat to the colossal USA...
I guess that is the difference between my country and wherever you are from. We will fight to defend those that can not defend themselves. We don't just think of ourselves. We believe that human rights come from God, not man and it is our duty to see that the people of the world are given the chance. We are not content to stand idly by as millions of innocents get slaughtered (Rwanda, Darfur) where as the UN, the organization mean to stop countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons and was created to stop genocide can do little more than write a strongly worded letter.
USA, who, I might add, has the most history of nuclear weapons abuse in the history of mankind.
Uh, we dropped two bombs on a country that was throughly defeated, but refused to surrender. Dropping those two bombs (what you call abuse), while horrific to the peoples of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, saved the lives of millions who would have suffered through the relentless bombing. All of Japan would have looked like Berlin at the end of WWII. So, what you call "abuse" actually saved cities like Tokyo. For that matter, there were parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unscathed by the attacks. Places like Dresden did not fare so well. Because of those two bombs, Japan came out of WWII a lot better than Germany. Or do you think a relentless carpet bombing, a naval blockade that would starve the Japanese citizens, and a continuation of the bloody island hopping campaign leading up to another Omaha Beach in Japan would have been better for both sides? Sorry, but saying we "abused" nuclear weapons is WWII is like saying we "abused" the aircraft carrier.
But why am I trying to convince you? The USA gives more to feed the poor around the world than all other nations combined. We liberate populations where people like you want sanctions that starve those same people. You have such a difficult time convincing yourself that you are right, you have to rewrite history to make those that you have unfounded hatred for into the most evil of peoples to justify your rage. You will stand up for a country that hangs suspected homosexuals, condones and even encourages wife beating, forces complete submission of women as a federal law, openly supports terrorists and has threatened multiple times to use nuclear weapons to destroy a country that has never attacked it. All while fighting against a country that has human rights as its foundation and equal rights written into its most sacred laws, that feeds the world and fights to spread freedom beyond its borders. And you don't see anything wrong with what you do.
The US gives the land its soldiers bleed and die for back to the people who live there rather than making it a conquered territory. Has any other country ever done that?
You can't solve everything with brute force either .
.
That's why we waited for 12 years and through 19 UN resolutions before going into Iraq. We tried every option conceivable before using overwhelming force, including the use of limited force. Nothing worked. I guess it didn't matter as some people think that force is absolutely never the answer. These are the people that would rather learn German see the rest of Jews sent to the showers than to actually go to war.
Same thing is happening in Iran today.
Those people are used to strong leaders . So it is likely that any democracy you install will eventually degrade into a dictatorship. Granted , it will be one that supports the US , but it's still no benefit to the people
and one that won't invade its neighbors, at least. Still, we have to try.
...more likely the other way around. The USA is the world's aggressor now, you know.
It's a shame that we are not more so. Maybe we could have stopped things like the Darfur or Rwanda massacres. Then again, even though we do have the world's largest military, we can't do it all without a little help. Hell, if we even got a little moral support it would go a long way. Instead, we get people from pussy nations like yours that want to debate everything at the UN while men, women and children are dying... quite literally. When was the last time a UN resolution saved anyone's life? When was the last time a debate convinced a dictator that holding and torturing political prisoners isn't a good thing? When was the last time the UN sent peace keepers to a nation and was actually able to keep the peaces. Last I heard, they either stood around within their walls and watched thugs steal the food the UN was trying to provide, run at the first sign of danger, or... and this is my favorite, rape the people they were sent to protect. Sorry to bring you back to real world, but sometimes you have to kick some ass to get things done. Asking nicely doesn't always work.
Finally, if you read your comment, you are defending a country that gives no human rights to its citizens. You are defending a country that literally rolled out tanks against an unarmed population. It limits the news, strips the Internet of any information that may be critical of the government and not just invades, but occupies foreign countries with no intention of ever leaving. I am the only one who sees the irony here?
And conservitards gave us the TSA. At this point, I'd far more trust even the dumbest ideas from the left in favor of the unamerican schemes from the right.
So you're comparing TSA, the group that searches luggage when traveling to groups that want to tell you what and how much you can eat or what you can do in your home!!!???!!! For Pete's sake, if you don't like TSA, don't fly! You can drive or take the friggin' bus! The ONLY time I see TSA is when I go to the air port. I eat every day!
TSA is does not restrict your freedom. Groups that want to tell you what and how much to eat do! Just because something is created by "conservitards" (as you call them) doesn't mean they are automatically worse than something created by liberals. Don't let your political views cloud your judgment. That's when you become a radical or a "winger". Get a grip for you own good.
Somalia and Afghanistan have a great many guns, however I don't know of anyone who would consider them models of public safety. Public safety seems to me to be far more dependent on a healthy society where economic mobility is available, public institutions like courts and schools function, and resources like water and food are plentiful. Of course, you're correct that all societies have firearms available at some level, and they can be useful for self-defense, but if you suddenly need to use one, it doesn't make any sense to say that you're in a much safer society.
Even in places like Somalia and Afghanistan, you are safer with a gun than without.
I own a gun, and I learned to use it properly in the military. I've shot recreationally since I was a teenager. I recognize that they are just a tool, and that good or bad intent lies behind the trigger, not in it. I also acknowledge that it is your right to arm yourself and provide for your your own defense. Of course, all rights entail responsibilities, such as the obligation to learn to handle a gun safely, and to learn the legal ramifications of its use. That said, I'm glad that you don't own a gun, and I wish you would stop trying to be an advocate for them, because your post makes you sound like you don't have the emotional maturity to own a water pistol.
I too was in the Military. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all invaders, foreign and domestic. My point was not to defend firearms, but to defend the Constitution and the people who take advantage of it.
Also, I hate bigots. I ate people that apply prejudice and stereotypes to anyone. It is no different to call Americans with guns nutjobs than it is to call Mexicans fruitpickers or black people porch riders. All three are equally repugnant and I will stand up against the racists who think that way, even if people like you assume that it shows emotional immaturity on my part.
Yes, I could have put it a bit more gently, but racists, bigots, and elitists put me in a rage. Unfortunately, it showed.
Well done on so spectacularly confirming that GP's use of "nut job" was completely fair.
Well, according to the GGP, gun owners are nut-jobs. Owning a gun is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Had he said "people that speak freely are nut-jobs" I would have offered to shout him down. Just like when people say religious people are nut-jobs, I offer to pray for them. He chose the Constitutionally protected weapon. I just showed its usefulness.
For the record, I don't own a gun. I'm protected by the idea that any house on my street may have a "nut-job" waiting inside. The thieves, rapists, kidnappers or whatever have no idea if I'm one of those "nut-jobs" or not.
Oh dear god... so, as long as all you nut-job Americans have guns, it's all ok.
What a fuckin' elitist asshole!
It's probably best that you are not an American. First, you're too stupid to be rich enough to hang out with elitist crowd in your gated community. That means that working class nut-jobs like myself will get to kick your ass every day until you're attitude is in proper adjustment.
you're not safe because you all have guns, and if you think you can sit back and let things happen just because you're packing heat, my god you're so very, very wrong.
Or, maybe we'll just shoot you since it is safe to assume that you are the type to bring a knife to a gun fight. Of course, we'll pop a few off into your knee caps first. When you stop screaming we'll ask, "Think you'd be safer if you had a gun? I sure feel safe right now."
I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.
Right! Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets. The Feds know this. First, chemistry sets were not banned, they were neutered. They were neutered long before 9-11. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with liability.
I understand that it's cool to bash the president and blame Bush for everything. However, this is not one of those cases. This isn't Bush's fault. If anything, it's John Edwards, or at least lawyers. Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that slingshots are hard to find, because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, kid's hands.
The people that are banning "dangerous" chemicals in chemical sets are the same people that forced MacDonald's to stop asking you if you wanted it "super sized", and the same people that are trying to ban you from smoking in a bar, or your car, and in your home, and outside... and so on. It's the same people who make planters put a label on a bag of peanuts that says, "danger, contains peanuts". It's the people that mandate seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These people are not conservatives (although there are some conservative nannies that say I can't drink beer in a bar after 2:00am). Nope! These are the same people that say things like "We are going to take things away from you for the common good".
Googling "nanny state chemistry set" took me to this article from the NY times. It's in response to an op-ed piece about the removal of chemistry sets. The article date, May 13, 1999. About 2.25 years BEFORE 9-11 and BEFORE the War on Terror. So, please, stop blaming this on Bush or the War On Terror. This was happening long before any of that!
From TFA: [Author's Note: This article is primarily a result of my frustration in trying to acquire a few hundred grams of potassium carbonate for an electrolyte solution.] I understand the author's frustration, but he should really know who's at fault before he passes blame. If banning chemsitry sets were about keeping dangerous chemicals out of the hands of terrorists, then Clorox bleach, Windex, and pool chemicals would have been banned with it.
Sorry, but TFA is just plain wrong.
I had several chemistry sets as a kid and spent many, many hours conducting experiments, often to my own harm (poisonous gases, chloral hydrate, etc...:-) High school chemistry almost got me arrested, and led in part to my expulsion from public school.
And this is the problem. It's not terrorism that is causing these things to disappear. It's the fact that we've become a nanny state, and it's not conservatives that are the cause! You can't get toys for your kids that may have pointed edge. You can't get toys for your kids that may fit down a wind pipe or break off into sharp pieces. This isn't because of GW Bush, it's because of lawyers. Any time a kid gets hurt by a toy, the company gets sued into oblivion, whether it was the company's fault or not! It becomes cheaper to settle out of court for $100,000 than it does not fight it out.
Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that sling shots are hard to find. It's not because they present a terrorism threat, it's because they are dangerous. The first time some kid mixes something that he wasn't supposed to makes an explosive, corrosive mixture that "puts an eye out", the company that made that kit gets sued. If it were about terror, this would be an article about how hard it is to find good pool chemicals!
It's the same nannies that want to tell you that you can't smoke in your house, or you can't have a big mac or supersize your fries. These people don't usually tend to be conservatives. It's happens to be the people that say things like, "we are going to take things away from you for the common good."
How dare these Germans! Don't they know that wiretapping is against the Constitution!??!
Except the little ones which I can only assume were sinners.
Today, we call the lizards.
It also potentially eliminates style upgrades. People needlessly consume by purchasing new vehicles endlessly. They also crash vehicles when they are driving them. Public transportation has the potential to be substantially safer, and it often is. This reduces the amount of money society must pay. If I didn't have to suffer for your decisions, then I would agree with you - in principle, this is about your freedom. In practice, this is about your freedom to crap on everyone else.
First, the government has no business dictating my "style". If paying for style is a bad thing, then why not mandate government uniforms for everyone? How about mandatory community housing? What about beauty care? Why should women be allowed to waste all that money on make up, manicures and hair care? Living in a free society means that we are free. I'm just as free to put spinners on my Yugo as you are choose what you do for a living.
My car dealer, mechanic, body shop and auto-tint dealer would all disagree with your assessment that my POV (Personally Owned Vehicle) is a waste. My car feeds their families. That's how economies work. My spending money on my car is not wasted. It is paid to someone else who either makes the parts or installs them. And when I wreck my car, society doesn't pay, I do in the form of insurance or directly. Again, this money is not lost. It pays for that little British gecko and all the people who work for him.
Such a situation is still predicated upon assistance from the government, which maintains the interstate highway system, or at least (kind of) funds it. What right does the government have to put superhighways across my country!? The nerve! I am being forced to pay for people to have transportation in Texas! THIS WILL NOT STAND!
First, the Interstate system in Texas is used to carry California Cherries to Florida and Mexican grown lettuce to... well everywhere. I agree that rail could do the job better in some instances, but that's not reality right now. Also, there are many truck drivers who would disagree.
Anyway, what is the biggest price-fixing cartel on the planet? You guessed it, the oil industry.
Since we are talking about an electric car vs public transportation, I don't see how this matters.
HOV lanes potentially help fight pollution, except that people often buy a new car for no reason other than getting into the lane. This results in a new vehicle purchase, which leads to future new vehicle production, which causes additional energy consumption, and is actually thus environmentally unfriendly. This is not least because the vast majority of vehicles which qualify are gasoline-electric hybrids, and the production of their batteries is horribly energy intensive, thus causing vast quantities of pollution.
HOV stands for High Occupancy Vehicle. It means that only cars with three or more people can drive in the HOV lane. Buses also take this lane. It's kinda like rail that cars can also use. And while some places may allow low emission vehicles on the HOV lanes, it is not the purpose of the lane.
By the way, HOV lanes do NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, to alleviate traffic pressure.
Well, since HOV lanes are actually built by public transportation departments for buses, then I guess you kinda shot down the whole public transport traffic benefit. However, I disagree, sort of. While I feel that it would be better to open two lanes to all traffic rather than a single HOV lane, HOV lanes do encourage car pooling. Look around the next time you are stuck in traffic. How many of those cars have a single person in them? How much do you think traffic could be reduced if each car had two people, halving the number of cars on the road? That is the type of think HOV lanes are meant to encourage... well that and allow buses their own lane.
Having the option of both is a pipe dream because public transportation systems fail if people do not use them.
If no one wants to use public transport, then
Apple tried allowing Mac clones once, before the resurrection of his Steveness.
The result was a significant loss in Apple hardware sales, and that loss was not even close to made up in OS licensing.
I remember. I supported those machines. (actually, I was the tech support monitor... but who cares)
Without knowing what Apple was charging those clone manufacturers I can not comment on how close that licensing would be compared to direct OS sales. Still, I doubt that Apple was charging the clone makers what the OS costs the end user ($129 single, 199 family). Also, I don't know if that program lasted long enough to make a difference. The program was canceled before customer had a chance to go out and buy an upgraded copy of the OS. Finally, now that Apple is selling x86 machines, they would be selling software for a huge percentage of the PC market, not just PPC machines.
Since most Apple users buy Apple machines because of the style that goes into the design, I don't see that changing much. Macs sell because they are works of art, not because of what's inside them. I see OSX being much more competition to the Windows market than I do the PC clone makers being competition for Apple's Mac line. Throw out the software, and I still see Macs selling about as well as do today on looks alone.
The Apple image alone is enough to allow OSX to outsell Windows. Windows is known as buggy, stuffy, business like, complicated and drab. OSX is known as cool, hip, flashy, easy to use, family friendly and... well, personal. Apple has silhouettes of beautiful people dancing, a rabid fan base and spokes people ranging from Bono to Rush Limbaugh (although Rush is not paid, he's just one of those rabid fans). Microsoft has Steve Ballmer, a bald, sweaty fat guy, and Bill Gates, the poster child for all things dork (not Geek, but DORK). Because of these reasons, I see Apple taking over the OS business in the same way the MS did just 15 years ago.
Apple would have to amortise Mac OS X development over millions of copies. Would you buy Mac OS X instead of MS Windows if it cost ten times as much? Who would?
Uh, that would be about $2000 per system. Is Apple selling OSX for that now? You can purchase a Mac with OSX for about $600. How much of that goes toward software development? Provided that they get the full $129.00, that would leave about $470 for hardware, advertising, profit, shipping, manufacture and so on. So I think that Apple makes more profit off of the OS when sold outright than when bundled into the cost of a new Mac. Of course, this does not include whatever is made from iLife subscriptions, those nifty picture books that are sold, iTunes bundling and so on...
Finally, while MS needs to design their OS's from the ground up, the core of OSX was done for them. It's UNIX on the inside. All Apple has to do is tweak it, write the GUI for system management and any apps that they wish to tack on. The hard part is done. All that Apple really needs to worry about is the flash.
First, I don't see Mac sales taking much of a hit. People that buy Macs are not the type to build their own PC's or install an OS that is not supported by their computer maker (Dell, for example). Most Mac buyers don't want to deal with that type of stuff. The rest buy Mac because of the style. These people would continue to buy Macintosh machines.
Where I think Apple would make their money is from people that are purchasing Vista right now. How many boxed copies of Vista have been sold. With all the bad press that Vista has, don't you think that OSX could put a significant dent in that number, if not a overtake it? It is not unreasonable for me to see Apple selling more copies of OSX to home users than Microsoft is selling Vista. Throw in the number of computer makers that are starting sell their systems without Windows, plus the increase in licensing and other software sales (iLive, MacOffice...). Of course, this is just the home market. Next will come the office. Once Apple gets their foot into the office, things really take off. First, there will be the increase in Mac sales (hardware). Then comes sale of OSX server software and services (it is UNIX, isn't it?) and the hardware to run it all.
So plug all those numbers into the formula and that 32% US and 10% worldwide seems pretty easy to come by. With Vista tanking, right now is the best time to start selling OSX to the masses. This opportunity won't last forever. MS will get their shit together eventually.
Not to mention it will kill Apple
I could not disagree more. Do you think that OSX is better than Windows? Most people do. How many of these people would be willing to pay a little bit more for OSX than they do for Windows? Again, I bet most of them would. So how long do you think it would take OSX to overtake Windows? My guess would be within 10 years. Combine this with server sales (it is UNIX after all) and maybe even an office product and you have an Apple that is making more than Microsoft and a Jobs that is richer than Gates.
Of course, the Mac business would take a hit, I don't think it would go under and any loss in the hardware business would be more than made up from the OS sales. People will still by Macs the same way they do today. Hell, there are people that buy Macs and install Windows on them. I had a Mac and I ran Yellow Dog Linux on it. Mac hardware can stand on its own. People know that Apple makes quality machines and are willing to pay the premium. Those that don't care much about the quality are sold on the style that oozes from every Apple design. Of course, the iPod sales wouldn't exactly be going away either.
Part of the reason why OS X is liked & so stable is because it can fairly easily be tested on every possible variant of Mac hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to test every possible PC setup (which is why they dont bother trying). They release early beta versions and use the in-built phone home features to report bugs.
Even with no support included they would be swamped with users complaining that it didn't work or was unstable for any number of reasons.
That's why most operating systems (Windows, Linux, etc) release a HCL, or Hardware Compatibility List that has all the hardware that has been tested to work with that OS. If it is not on the list, then it is not supported, end of story. Oh, it may work, but if it doesn't, you're SOL. Buy something from the list.
Of course, if Apple released OSX to non-Apple machines, they would take a hit on their hardware sales. However, I feel that selling enough copies of OSX to run on, say 30% of the world's desktops would more than make up for any loss in the hardware market. Besides, Apple's hardware has a certain level of class that people are willing to pay for. Look at what the iPod offers compared to other non-Apple MP3 players. Then compare the price. Apple is still selling the snot out of iPods at a much higher price than the competition because they own the cool factor. I don't see Mac sales dropping much if OSX were released. I would see OSX overtaking Windows within 10 years though!
Wow, what a strawman.
The public transportation system I described is quite real. It was from my experiences riding in Chicago. I did not, however, mention the weather. It was 15 below 0 Fahrenheit that morning. I think it "warmed" up to about 5 by the time I got home. With wind gusts up to 30 mph, I'm not even going to guess at the wind chill. I had to stand outside for at least 15 minutes each way waiting for the train. So, no. It was not a strawman.
This isn't about your freedom.
First, the GP said my attitude needed to be changed. Why does that sound like the kind of job a re-education camp would perform? This guy is saying I don't even have the freedom to think what I want. My God! If I'm not free to think, what am I free to do?
This has everything to do with my freedom. When the government controls how I get places, then the government controls everything. Where I live, what I can carry, when I can travel, where I can go and how much it will cost me are all controlled by government rules. Sorry, but giving the government that much control over my life is not what I would call freedom.
Public transportation works in Europe. Granted, there are geographical differences as well as cultural differences. If you spent enough time in the right European cities, you would probably see systems where public transportation is working.
Maybe, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is all government controlled. I hear that their system is the best in the world, but that doesn't mean I want it forced on me here in the US. What advantage does a public transport system have over privately owned non-polluting automobiles?
Here is one case study... I spent a year in Poznan, Poland (pop 567,882). In that city, there are 20 trams (streetcar) lines and 57 bus lines. The trams run center-city and through the more dense areas, with buses making up the difference.
Poland? Did they used to be communist? Aren't these people used to having the government control their lives? That takes me back to my original point. Take new Orleans for example. Katrina was on the way and the people with cars left. No government assistance required. Those that didn't have cars went to the Superdome and were stuck. We all know how that turned out. If the government gets stuck, you're out of luck! (a counter example would be the evacuation of Houston about a month after Katrina in the way of another hurricane. There was a traffic jam from Houston to Austin, about 200 miles of bumper to bumper cars. There is better planning now for such a situation.)
I'll push all that aside for now. I live in a city with about 5,000 people. It's about 20 miles from where I work, a city of about 656,000. How do I get from one transportation system to the other? How long will that take? I work from 10:00am until 7:00pm. Sometimes I have to work late. Does public transportation run until 9:00pm? Does it run until midnight? Do I want to be on public transportation after midnight?
While some own vehicles, the public transportation system has high ridership, to the point that during rush-hour one must be careful not to be crushed...
A problem I don't experience in my car. Although, I may be crushed by another car, but that is a different story.
People are not living by loud trains, but they are more comfortable with walking and riding bikes, and there are sidewalks (something quite rare in the USA). It may be 1-2 kilometers to the nearest tram stop, and that is perfectly fine by the city inhabitants.
How was that walk in the rain? Any better in the snow? How about freezing rain? Granted, I don't like driving in bad weather either, but at least I'm not standing in it.
That said, I lived right next to the tram on the 6th floor of a high-rise, and hardly noticed the tram. It wasn't much, if at all, worse than the traffic of an average suburban street in the USA.
If you live in a high-rise, then
Improving public transport will reduce pollution, congestion and accidents. Sadly, before we can improve public transport, we'll need to change attitudes like yours.
That's the joy of living in a free country. I'm free to have whatever attitude I like without people like you telling me what to think. Then again, why would someone as superior as yourself care about the people who live in communities that can not afford public transportation like Findlay OH for example. What about the good people of Springfield IL or Houma LA? Even in large cities like Houston TX have areas where people work that are not downtown. Many people work in the outskirts of town. What good is the Metro Park-and-Ride that takes people from parking lots in the outskirts of town to downtown Houston to people who work at HP (formerly Compaq), in north Houston. What good would a public rail system to and from downtown Austin do for the people who work at Dell in Round Rock?
See, that's the problem. People like you want to charge outrageous taxes to build a public transport system so people can get to and from the center of town. What that does is drive up taxes to the point where no new businesses can afford to be downtown. When they try to build on the outskirts, you claim that they are going to destroy the environment by building out there or that they are contributing to urban sprawl or whatever. Finally, the company says screw you people and moves to a friendlier are such as Houston or Austin, or they say screw it all and simply outsource their workforce to someplace like India or Mexico where there is simply no environmental regulation whatsoever. So while you think you are saving the world, you are actually playing a large part in destroying it. Instead of wanting clean, plug-in, quick charging cars that I can use to drive to and from work, you think that the government should be taxing businesses out of this country so I can ride in cramped quarters with a bunch of human flu-factories to my soon-to-be outsourced job.
Of course, this also forces people to live as close as possible to the rail or bus station. Few people can afford to drive to the place where public transportation picks them up. Then they are paying for a car, insurance, parking AND for public transportation. This means we'll all have to live in cramped, overpriced apartments next to the rail station. Nothing says dinner at home like the 5:15 L roaring by, squealing as it bounces from side to side. So much for Americans owning their own homes or making a life better for themselves. They must now live in planned communities, have to rely on the government to take them place to place, rely on the government to build and maintain public spaces for their kids to play in, only be able to buy a day or two's worth of groceries because they don't have a car trunk to put them all in.
Of course, don't even get me started on what will happen if an evacuation were to occur. Without a car, where will you go? Maybe you could go to the local sports stadium and wait for the government to take you away from there.
Is that your idea of 'land of the free?' Wouldn't it be better if I could just have my clean car AND my freedom? Isn't that what freedom is all about, being able to live as I want to live? I can take care of myself. I don't want the government proving for my every need.
i think you missed the part where it says "street"-car. 130km/hr is a little too fast for city streets...
No, but I meant for a car-car... just that piece of data didn't make it into the post. Improving street cars will do little to reduce pollution. What is needed is improvements that will allow for electric car-cars to become practical, and that was my meaning.
Down-modding just because you disagree is against the moderator guidelines. Why not post a reply, instead? I can never tell if this sort of thing is irony or hypocrisy. We need a new word for this - hyporonicrisy. The "oron" in the middle is a coincidence. The point of the post was not to debate Iraq or global warming. Those were examples of how it is really the media that is in charge of how and what information is reported on. I used examples from both sides of the political spectrum to show that it is not a partisan comment. Also, I didn't want to be downmodded from both sides!