Rei: your points sound as if you were countering the argument "everybody should always use public transit for all their transportation and nobody should own a car." I think very few public transit advocates are this fanatic. The argument is more like "more people should have a choice for their mode of transportation."
All of your points are valid some of the time; none are valid all of the time. Some depend on personal choices, others on personal ability, yet others on local conditions, such as how well the transit network is designed.
In my opinion, the biggest problems that occur with various public transit systems are sparse communities where no viable routes can be formed; scheduling and routing that doesn't correspond to people's needs; unreliable service; expensive fares or difficult fare structure; vehicles don't get cleaned or monitored and appear unattractive.
I think we need both public transit and private cars to complement each other. Ideally, public transport should be the high-speed, high-capacity backbone, with incompatible transportation (larger loads than can be conveniently carried, destinations not conveniently reachable by public transit) handled by private car or other transportation (e.g. refigerator brought home by delivery truck). So I don't see why there's a need to see them as opposed. If somebody likes to drive, let them. If some of the drivers opt for public transit, the rest will have an easier time driving. I don't see any reason why having a public transportation system would eliminate the choice of using personal transportation.
Isn't it usually a good thing to have alternatives?
(The following is satire, a form of humor. No actual persons have been or will be punched as a result of this post.)
I heard the law says you have the right not to be punched. So if you pay me $4, I won't punch you. If you want me not to punch you again, it's another $4.
No, crime is not that rampant. It's a matter of perceived versus actual risk. People perceive it as a risk that they might unwittingly let in a burglar or other criminal with the intercom, and the construction company perceives the intercom as a liability that needs cabling, maintenance, and is a target for vandalism, whether that vandalism exists or not.
The doors are kept locked in many buildings because most buildings no longer have on-site janitors responsible for keeping an eye on the premises. What follows is the thought that only trusted persons, i.e. residents or those approved by them, can be allowed in. In reality, some buildings have no janitors, but still choose to have the street entrance doors open during the day. I haven't seen any more vandalism in these. (Don't know about other types of crime.) In fact, I've got a hard time remembering any significant vandalism in residential buildings. (It does exist, just that it's rare and concentrated in some problem areas.)
Now, who's the first to construct a DIY microfluidic NAND gate (or a more complex computation unit, such as a half or full adder) using the method described? Has somebody done so?
Seriously, we have more mobile phones than people. (In 2006, number of mobile phone subscriptions was 107.6/100 people, source.) Apparently everybody always carries a phone, never loses or breaks it, and no battery ever dies, no prepaid SIM runs out, or nobody's phone bill reaches the cap they wisely set upon themself with the carrier - just as they were meant to call their friend to let them in. No, let the poor bastards freeze to death.
Yes, they are too cheap; besides, door intercom systems are subject to vandalism.
You can knock yourself out at the street level entrance, which is always locked, while the friend you're supposed visit waits patiently for your call in his seventh-floor apartment. You'd do better setting off a car alarm: then he might take a look outside if he were bored enough. Then you could entertain half the building gesturing to your friend. (s/he/she/g if you want.)
The traditional way to get somebody to open a door has been to whistle or throw a small object into the window (not big enough to break it, if you want to be on friendly terms with the person, and inconvenient if the window is very high), or in the last few decades to press a button in an intercom system that enables you to coerce whomever is inside to open the door for you (if audio-only, it's often enough to just say "paper delivery", if equipped with video, not that much harder, or in the last 20 years have a code that you type into a keypad next to the door. It seems that these days most people just say "call me when you're at the door", so the intercom systems go unused. This apartment block's architect seems to have taken this into account, and not bothered with an intercom. Apparently the mail, newspaper, etc. delivery people will have keys, or know who to call to get in.
Of course you can just wait until somebody comes out and grab the door.
For a data point, in our two-person Finnish household there are currently seven mobile phones: two in personal use, one in business use, four obsolete, one of which is kept as a backup with a prepaid SIM that came as a gift. Only counting phones personally owned (i.e. not by the employer) still makes five.
(pauses to think)
I'm pretty sure the wife got rid of her old clunker phone (that would be her second obsolete phone). If not, that's number eight.
I concur from Finland. Subtitles were originally selected here as a cheaper alternative to dubbing. In the late eighties or early nineties one commercial channel tried dubbing The Bold and the Beautiful, but it wasn't popular. Around the same time, give or take a few years, on the same channel, one children's cartoon was originally subtitled (if memory serves), then dubbed, then narrated, (as in, narrator speaks in a pompous voice over a muted cartoon), then cancelled. Good riddance: it sucked to begin with...
Subtitles enable the viewer to experience the original soundscape and the actors' voices, tones, and emotions while providing a summary of the lines. I think it's a good balance, but of course it's a matter of taste.
You've probably found examples of old sleeper cars with bunk beds and a curtain for privacy. (Featured in Laurel and Hardy films.) I'm talking about modern sleepers, which pretty much match your description. See here (PDF) (the Edm) for an example. The upper level cabins have private showers.
Ah, but do you know, there's this "CORTEX CUTOFF" button in the left buttock... I hear there's also a "BRAIN PWR OFF" button somewhere, but I really don't want to know.
(...) I'd imagine seeing the return of the sleeper and dining cars. Imagine, rather than having 3 choices of meal that are all pretty terrible, having an actual menu. And after your dinner you retire to a sleeper car and get a good night's sleep while you travel. Wake up, have a nice breakfast and read the paper until you arrive. Advantage: Train, as long as they're smart.
Duration: NYC to LAX is 7 to 8 hours, with one stop. At 300mph, a train would be able to make a straightline distance in ~8 hours, nonstop. Assuming some stops, and the fact that a straightline track between the two locations is rather unlikely, I'll guess it'd be more along the line of 12-16 hours. Advantage: Plane, barely. Overnight train with sleeper cars (and waiting private showers at the train station) would beat it in convenience.
I am not a transportation engineer, but based on what I know about TGV construction costs, I guess a NYC-Chicago-LAX conventional high speed line (estimating a length of 5000 km or 3125 miles), built for 220 mph (350 km/h) operation could be built at a price of perhaps $75 billion (the price of 750 miles of maglev line). At an average speed of 200 mph (320 km/h), the trip would take about 16 hours. If the trains consisted mostly of sleepers, with showers (no problem these days), and had a decent dining car, and had a no-additional-cost onboard Internet access, this might even catch on.
Should such a line be built, it would be put to good use if besides the transcontinental trains there were also other high-speed trains running shorter distances with more frequent stops, providing intercity service along the line. Also, there's no need to stay on the dedicated lines: there's already a passenger corridor down the east coast, for example. High-speed trains would only require a dedicated line where continuous high-speed running is required. Existing city stations could be used, so departure an arrival would be downtown.
Now, I do admit that having a long stretch of dedicated high-speed track sounds like the job for maglev, but it's easily forgotten that transportation is a network. Different modes of transport are linked together. The dilemma is that people generally dislike transfers and prefer direct connections. A new rail line that's incompatible with the existing lines (such as a maglev line) would not enable direct connections, except for a minority of trips.
The only question is who would do this? Richard Branson?
I'm not a big fan of maglev. I do recognize that it's a great technology and a nice bit of engineering, but I'm not convinced of its practicality in most cases. The French TGV and the German ICE run at ~200 mph (~300 to 320 km/h). That's fast enough to beat flying over distances of up to 800 miles, depending on airport delays. The dedicated high-speed steel rail lines are much cheaper to construct (by a factor of 10) and operate than maglev.
At 200 mph average speed (possible with dedicated lines, few stops and slightly over 200 mph cruising speed, no big deal) a New York to Los Angeles trip would take something like 13 to 14 hours; increasing the speed to 300 mph would drop the time to something like 9 hours.
If there were a transcontinental 300 mph line available, then 9 hours would certainly beat most flights, with airport delays factored in. However, there's more to the issue. First, a maglev train would be extremely vulnerable to any signalling or trackage faults, and any problem would cause the entire line to stand still, whereas steel rail lines could (and would, and should) be connected to the rest of the rail network, making it easier to route around problems. The trip would take longer, but you'd get there, even if the high-speed line was in pieces.
This brings us to the issue of connections. People don't live at international airports, despite TSA's efforts, and they don't live at rail stations, at least those who could afford to use the trains. So connections are needed. Steel wheel trains could carry on using the existing infrastructure (as the French TGV trains do, sometimes far away from the actual high-speed lines), to where it's convenient for people to get on and off, possibly including airports so existing air connections could be utilized. With maglev, there are two choices: extend the line ($$$$$$$$$), or change trains.
Finally, 300 mph has been reached on steel rails. What I'd like to know is which is more energy efficient (kW per passenger seat at 480 km/h) in 300 mph operation: maglev or steel? Because to my knowledge, at that kind of speed most of the resistance comes from displacing air...
Note to people with mod points: if you don't understand it, don't automatically assume it's a joke. The parent describes a typical setup for protecting an electronic device against radio frequency interference.
(Of course, this too will be modded funny...)
I thought it was like the witchcraft trials: throw the suspect in water. If they survive, they're guilty and will be burned (once dried out); if they drown, they were innocent. In this case, just throw the suspect in space. If they survive, they're guilty and can be left outside. If they die, they were obviously innocent...
The file copy progress indicator I'd like to see: Instead of remaining time, just show elapsed time and "n of m files copied (k errors)". When finished, if k>0, show errors and leave those files selected which weren't copied without errors.
Operator's Manual
I - Warnings
1) Do not stand directly behind the horse. The horse may discharge energy or material without warning.
2) Do not stand directly in front of the horse. Consequent to the 180-degree WideField side vision, the horse may not be able to detect objects in line and in close proximity with its head, and may therefore take defensive action, including but not limited to biting.
Slashdot Mirror
Rei: your points sound as if you were countering the argument "everybody should always use public transit for all their transportation and nobody should own a car." I think very few public transit advocates are this fanatic. The argument is more like "more people should have a choice for their mode of transportation."
All of your points are valid some of the time; none are valid all of the time. Some depend on personal choices, others on personal ability, yet others on local conditions, such as how well the transit network is designed.
In my opinion, the biggest problems that occur with various public transit systems are sparse communities where no viable routes can be formed; scheduling and routing that doesn't correspond to people's needs; unreliable service; expensive fares or difficult fare structure; vehicles don't get cleaned or monitored and appear unattractive.
I think we need both public transit and private cars to complement each other. Ideally, public transport should be the high-speed, high-capacity backbone, with incompatible transportation (larger loads than can be conveniently carried, destinations not conveniently reachable by public transit) handled by private car or other transportation (e.g. refigerator brought home by delivery truck). So I don't see why there's a need to see them as opposed. If somebody likes to drive, let them. If some of the drivers opt for public transit, the rest will have an easier time driving. I don't see any reason why having a public transportation system would eliminate the choice of using personal transportation.
Isn't it usually a good thing to have alternatives?
That was the one guy who actually bought a Zune.
I heard the law says you have the right not to be punched. So if you pay me $4, I won't punch you. If you want me not to punch you again, it's another $4.
Extortion? What's that?
The doors are kept locked in many buildings because most buildings no longer have on-site janitors responsible for keeping an eye on the premises. What follows is the thought that only trusted persons, i.e. residents or those approved by them, can be allowed in. In reality, some buildings have no janitors, but still choose to have the street entrance doors open during the day. I haven't seen any more vandalism in these. (Don't know about other types of crime.) In fact, I've got a hard time remembering any significant vandalism in residential buildings. (It does exist, just that it's rare and concentrated in some problem areas.)
Now, who's the first to construct a DIY microfluidic NAND gate (or a more complex computation unit, such as a half or full adder) using the method described? Has somebody done so?
Yes, they are too cheap; besides, door intercom systems are subject to vandalism.
The traditional way to get somebody to open a door has been to whistle or throw a small object into the window (not big enough to break it, if you want to be on friendly terms with the person, and inconvenient if the window is very high), or in the last few decades to press a button in an intercom system that enables you to coerce whomever is inside to open the door for you (if audio-only, it's often enough to just say "paper delivery", if equipped with video, not that much harder, or in the last 20 years have a code that you type into a keypad next to the door. It seems that these days most people just say "call me when you're at the door", so the intercom systems go unused. This apartment block's architect seems to have taken this into account, and not bothered with an intercom. Apparently the mail, newspaper, etc. delivery people will have keys, or know who to call to get in.
Of course you can just wait until somebody comes out and grab the door.
For a data point, in our two-person Finnish household there are currently seven mobile phones: two in personal use, one in business use, four obsolete, one of which is kept as a backup with a prepaid SIM that came as a gift. Only counting phones personally owned (i.e. not by the employer) still makes five.
(pauses to think)
I'm pretty sure the wife got rid of her old clunker phone (that would be her second obsolete phone). If not, that's number eight.
We seem to have a waste problem here...
What if it's the same people making a profit off both spam and anti-spam software?
Subtitles enable the viewer to experience the original soundscape and the actors' voices, tones, and emotions while providing a summary of the lines. I think it's a good balance, but of course it's a matter of taste.
Interesting.
You've probably found examples of old sleeper cars with bunk beds and a curtain for privacy. (Featured in Laurel and Hardy films.) I'm talking about modern sleepers, which pretty much match your description. See here (PDF) (the Edm) for an example. The upper level cabins have private showers.
Ah, but do you know, there's this "CORTEX CUTOFF" button in the left buttock... I hear there's also a "BRAIN PWR OFF" button somewhere, but I really don't want to know.
Should such a line be built, it would be put to good use if besides the transcontinental trains there were also other high-speed trains running shorter distances with more frequent stops, providing intercity service along the line. Also, there's no need to stay on the dedicated lines: there's already a passenger corridor down the east coast, for example. High-speed trains would only require a dedicated line where continuous high-speed running is required. Existing city stations could be used, so departure an arrival would be downtown.
Now, I do admit that having a long stretch of dedicated high-speed track sounds like the job for maglev, but it's easily forgotten that transportation is a network. Different modes of transport are linked together. The dilemma is that people generally dislike transfers and prefer direct connections. A new rail line that's incompatible with the existing lines (such as a maglev line) would not enable direct connections, except for a minority of trips.
The only question is who would do this? Richard Branson?
At 200 mph average speed (possible with dedicated lines, few stops and slightly over 200 mph cruising speed, no big deal) a New York to Los Angeles trip would take something like 13 to 14 hours; increasing the speed to 300 mph would drop the time to something like 9 hours.
If there were a transcontinental 300 mph line available, then 9 hours would certainly beat most flights, with airport delays factored in. However, there's more to the issue. First, a maglev train would be extremely vulnerable to any signalling or trackage faults, and any problem would cause the entire line to stand still, whereas steel rail lines could (and would, and should) be connected to the rest of the rail network, making it easier to route around problems. The trip would take longer, but you'd get there, even if the high-speed line was in pieces.
This brings us to the issue of connections. People don't live at international airports, despite TSA's efforts, and they don't live at rail stations, at least those who could afford to use the trains. So connections are needed. Steel wheel trains could carry on using the existing infrastructure (as the French TGV trains do, sometimes far away from the actual high-speed lines), to where it's convenient for people to get on and off, possibly including airports so existing air connections could be utilized. With maglev, there are two choices: extend the line ($$$$$$$$$), or change trains.
Finally, 300 mph has been reached on steel rails. What I'd like to know is which is more energy efficient (kW per passenger seat at 480 km/h) in 300 mph operation: maglev or steel? Because to my knowledge, at that kind of speed most of the resistance comes from displacing air...
They're trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Once backbones get upgraded, we will see a sub-second slashdot effect.
Note to people with mod points: if you don't understand it, don't automatically assume it's a joke. The parent describes a typical setup for protecting an electronic device against radio frequency interference. (Of course, this too will be modded funny...)
(Captcha: abysses.)
Even I have a random memory!
The file copy progress indicator I'd like to see: Instead of remaining time, just show elapsed time and "n of m files copied (k errors)". When finished, if k>0, show errors and leave those files selected which weren't copied without errors.
(The good thing about 200 km/h is that the tunnels around here don't last long enough for connections to time out...)
You are getting stressed. Cancel or Allow?