[As always, scroll to bottom for cheats and links, to avoid commentary.]
Ubuntu is amazing, and I can't back away from that statement I made several years ago. It continues to be the easiest user experience and best operating system on the market in 2011. I stripped the HP boot partition and windows partitions off my Pavillion years ago, and have it solely booting to Ubuntu. Since I dumped Vista, I haven't had any software issues whatsoever.
But, nothing is perfect, and Ubuntu 10.04 has its share of quirks. First, realize that every hardware system is different, and Ubuntu like any other OS has to load specific drivers for your machines hardware, which leads to variances in the user experience. Windows handles this by requiring hardware to be "windows certified," which means that they've paid MSFT for a badge. As far as I can tell, no actual "tuning" for that hardware is happening. The only difference is the vendor gets better access to the distribution channels, but still no access to code.
Ubuntu simply does its best to ensure that there's a work-around for every piece of hardware in use today. Ubuntu probably won't try to release a patch that works on a 286, but any computer made in the last few years is certain to have been examined by several coders. The bug management in Linux is astonishing, although somewhat jerky, and often populated with trite or even venomous comments. I've seen some bugs go unanswered for 4+ years, still open. Even so, these issues are in the minority, as tens of thousands of bugs get patched every year.
I'm not talking blue-screen bugs either, I mean little things like the mouse pointer going away when a window switches focus, and you have to alt-f4, wiggle mouse, or alt-tab to get it back. Ubuntu NEVER crashes. I've loaded it intentionally on a heat-damaged server in my garage that tends to shut down randomly and generate interesting garbage characters in the command line. It's pretty messed up. Ubuntu 9.10 loaded on it flawlessly, and I saw all the heat problems vanish within 24 hours. It still just shuts off once in a while, on its own, but the machine is now usable again!
I would not suggest that the new user, casual user, or business user go to Ubuntu Forums. That's a great place to get a really bad impression of Linux. These are close-to-the-machine folks who do not have great social skills, obviously from the text that they post, many of them could use a couple of classes in both grammar and professional conduct. It's also not easy to navigate, and I've had fun attempting to find solutions there even though I am also a programmer.
Blogs like my own and other gear-heads, geeks, and nerds have taken it upon themselves to post walk-throughs on how to fix common issues with Ubuntu, such as the lack of MP3 players in the default software. Trust me, going to a forum and asking where the mp3 player is will not result in happy answers.
Sometimes, they just don't even seem to understand the question. Here's one that has been plaguing me for some time, a random problem that appears when I plug a USB mouse into my laptop. The click keys of the mouse, and my entire keyboard, go dead. I have to unplug the mouse and reboot, run config again, and toggle settings in the gnome configuration to reset the mouse. Then it works fine, for a while, apparently. This is not a fix, it's a kludge, and it irritates me to need to reboot. I like touchpads when I'm on the road, but when I sit down in Starbucks I'd like to pull out my portable mouse and use it. [No, not while I'm literally driving.]
- - USB Mouse
- Description:
When plugged into an HP Pavillion, the keyboard and mouse buttons and touchpad become nonresponsive, requiring reboot to fix. Symptoms are immediately reproduced after reboot if USB mouse is plugged in again, to any USB port.
- Severity:
Computer is useless/nonresponsive. Severe.
- Previous Work Around:
Toggle gnome mouse touchpad settings off then on again.
Does not resolve issue.
- Open System, Preferences, Keyboard - Layouts tab.
* choose the correct keyboard model. Was set to default, changed to HP PV5
- Open System, Preferences, Mouse - General tab.
* DESELECT show pointer when control key is pressed.
* Touchpad tab, SELECT disable touchpad while typing.
- Open Terminal. Type 'gconf-editor' and press enter.
* Open Desktop, Gnome, Accessibility, and select mouse. DESELECT animate cursor.
Try to use ALT F2 if the problem recurs.
- - Synaptic
- Description:
Ubuntu has its own "update" software, but will not monitor or maintain your system beyond purely security measures. You need "Synaptic."
* Open 'gnome-terminal' with ALT-F2.
* Type 'sudo apt-get synaptic' and press Enter. You'll be asked for your password.
- - Wireless
- Description:
Broadcom is the Wifi card in my HP. It does not work without special drivers.
- Ubuntu recognizes the proprietary hardware and will automatically offer a download to allow you to configure your hardware if you plug into an Ethernet Jack.
- No other steps needed.
- - NVidia
- Description:
NVidia is my GPU, and it works in default mode at a lower resolution than the LCD is capable of.
- Ubuntu recognizes the proprietary hardware and will automatically offer a download to allow you to configure your hardware.
- in Synaptic, add Compiz, Compiz Config Settings Manager.
- This is one of few situations in which reboot is required for Ubuntu.
- - MP3, DVD, media
- Description:
Ubuntu and Debian do not come with software that require licenses. They also do not support license-restricted software. It is recommended to use alternatives which ARE in Ubuntu. However, sometimes you need to hear an MP3, or play a DVD.
- Open Synaptic. Click the Settings tab. Select Repositories.
* General Settings tab, SELECT "multiverse" or restricted software option.
* Select Close, and then the Reload tab.
* Search MP3, select mpg123, click mark for install.
* Search dvd, select libdvd4, click mark for install.
* Select APPLY.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Drug Science. No Lies, No Politics. The Truth.
This article is clearly labeled according to ISO 9001 standards.
Header/Title: "Drug Science. No Lies, No Politics. The Truth."
Byline: "The scientific unaltered facts about drugs, recreational and legal."
Meta: "follow, index, archive."
Notes: "Footer contains references and sources."
Body: "follows this line, precedes footer."
Premise:
The US and other national standards offer legal standings on drugs and drug use that do not match scientific data. These laws are supposed or assumed to be politically biased, and may be morality induced rather than factual. The clearest known bias is against the natural herb 'Cannabis Majoris'.[1,2]
Example of Bias:
Black or African and Hispanic Americans are sent to prison for 20 years to life for possession of CM,[3] while Rich and White Americans are given suspended sentences and probation for possession of powder cocaine or barbituates.[4] Wealthy Americans are also given prescriptions for hard drugs such as speed, meth, and other drugs that poor people are sent to jail for using without official permit.[5,6] The permission is difficult to obtain, and Doctors routinely refuse those without health care insurance.[7] ER and free clinics decline to dispense controlled substances at all, even where it would be of medical aid. The default assumption is that poor people are addicts, and wealthy people are sick.[8,9,10]
Drug Addiction side effects:
Addition is a chemical dependency which can cause illness, mental instability, and even death.[11] Treatment and Legal methods of dealing with addictive substances and abusers, or victims, of them have not been reliable without addressing underlying causes.[12] People who have a hard life or reasoning to be depressed, or a mental issue, will resume using drugs after being released from jail or treatment facilities. People who DO NOT have these issue will ALSO relapse into drug abuse if they are not correctly treated, supported, and given power over their addiction.[13]
Systemic Problems of the Health Industry:
Despite efforts to improve the system, communication does not happen between hospitals in a timely manner. Only state and federally mandated incidents are reported, and not accurately. In one hospital, a patient's request for hard drugs might be documented, but in another it will be ignored. Even when documented, it may not be properly reported, or it may be illegal in that state to report out-of-hand without a matching legal incident. Hospitals and Doctors are secretive about what they must report, and how they do so, or for another reason no information on this reporting can not be found outside of voluminous legal codes. As I am a scientist and not an attorney, I will not address this particular facet.
Without solid records, it's easy for addicts to relocate to gain more services when cut off, as many charitable clinics are too cash-starved to perform well or at all in enforcement. Unfunded mandates do result in lack of compliance.[14]
Student run clinics inside of major education institutions are the only ones likely to comply with regulations thoroughly.[15] However, access to these institutions is not universal, despite any claims to the contrary. They deal with known patients, other students, and privileged classes as a priority. Emergencies are stabilized and sent to a professional ER. Triage is a term which most poor people learn to hate, because it is in triage with a low-paid nurse that the determination is made as to whether any assistance will be given. Children who later died have been turned away from hospital ERs when they had no insurance.[15,16]
These problems combine to effectively deny care to the poor, and fail to track potential drug problems.
Drug Industry:
Despite an apparent campaign against drug abuse, the United States promotes and provides monopoly status to some of the world's largest drug cartels, collectively known as the Pharmaceutical Industry. They enjoy an ability to promote lifetime drug dependency based upon a system which works to prohibit cures in preference to drug treatments. Therapy is usually incidental to medication.[17]
The only beneficiary of a continued policy of criminalized street drug use is the Drug Industry. No person, no government, and no other corporations benefit from this hazardous policy. The appearance of Pharma Lobbyists at any 'legalization' vote is damning.[18,19]
The beneficiary of decriminalizing, or legalizing and regulation of drug use is twofold, the people of the United States, and the Government of the United States. The people gain access to safe drugs, treatment, and can then be monitored. Monitoring is not remotely possible while drugs are illegal. The Government saves billions spent on law enforcement[20], and gains billions more in taxes on the now legal drugs.[21] This is simple economics.
Drug damage from use:
Overwhelmingly, the primary harm is criminal activity.[22] Between manufacturing, distributing, selling, and using drugs is a very long list of criminal acts which feeds organized crime. Many thousands of people die every year, not from USING drugs, but from the crime of making and selling them. Competition is deadly, and law enforcement will shoot first, ask questions later. The risks are so high that it seems to be worth risking death to avoid being caught, and the profits are obviously high enough to encourage this.[23] It dwarfs the amount consumers spend on legal drugs.[24]
More people die in car accidents than from drug use deaths AND cancer combined.[25,26]
Drug recreation:
People use drugs because they either are fun to use, or are promoted as fun to use. Being as the illegal drug industry enjoys zero ability to advertise anywhere in the world, the likelihood is that some drugs are enjoyable. Prevention by education does not appear to have offset this trend, as drug use is rising despite decades of education against it. When people feel that life isn't going to end well, that retirement isn't possible, or that they have no future, there is little reason to expect that they wouldn't want to try drugs. The poor overwhelmingly suffer from drug abuse.[27,28,29]
Based upon relatively low rates of death, and obvious long term use throughout America, drugs seem to be more of a problem for those who lack health care and have little or no income. People who work or have a family to live with can enjoy all the drugs that they'd like to. This does little to reduce the demand for illegal drugs! "If drugs were really bad", I've heard teenagers state, "more people would die from them." The common-man perception is that drugs are NOT HARMFUL, but that lack of health care IS harmful. The fact that millions of people are able to use drugs without serious health issues will not diminish this popular view.
Everyone knows college kids use drugs. Anyone who wants to deny this needs to read a newspaper, or perhaps has never been to college. Though I never participated, I learned most of what I know about drugs from going to college, and not from attending the classes! So, 1 in 3 college students uses drugs, is the national average from about 2005. So, there should be a lot of crime on campus, right? Actually, No.[30] Colleges with thousands of students typically experience only a handful of crimes per year, and they are not all drug related. The vast majority of drug related crimes involve alcohol - WHICH IS LEGAL.[31]
Rates of substance abuse now approach 50% in college.[32] Why are we not seeing large scale arrests, massive crime waves, and thousands of students dying every year? Because drug use is not as harmful as authorities want people to believe. The perception of deadly drugs is intended to stop people from using them. In fact, more people die from simply doing stupid things, than from the drugs themselves. Drugs do in fact impair your senses, sometimes fatally. No, that train does not want to play tag with you. If you think it does, you are either high, or you need to stop listening to those voices.
There are few factual statistics about an illegal substance, because it's illegal. There are no sales records. Nobody knows how many people really use drugs every day. It is known to be millions of people PER DAY based upon drug busts and review of the criminal drug trail. It is clear that millions of people are consuming drugs each day based upon the rate of influx to the United States. However, there are also home grown, and home made drugs, which are not tracked at all.[33]
Profiteers:
Despite illegality, US banks, the CIA, and the US government have actually been able to PROFIT from ILLEGAL DRUGS.[34] THIS is something that HAS TO STOP. Our government can not, should not, and must not EVER BE ALLOWED to act illegally, for any reason. A government MAKES the law, and therefor it should not be difficult for a government to OBEY the law they MAKE.
Footer: "sources follow this line."
1. www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
2. www.justice.gov/dea/statistics.html
3. www.nyclu.org/files/MARIJUANA-ARREST-CRUSADE_Final.pdf
4. www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/mjarnyc/researchrpts/
5. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561263/
6. www.nyclu.org/node/1736
7. www.medschool.ucsf.edu/PRIME/conference/abstracts/the-relationship-between-hospital-emergency-room-utilization-rates-and-access-to-care.pdf
8. www.fff.org/freedom/fd0212d.asp
9. www.reconsider.org/wordpress/?page_id=436
10. www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
11. www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2011/January/painkillers-fuel-growth-in-drug-addiction
12. store.samhsa.gov/home
13. www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/drugaddiction.html
14. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sup_01_2_10_25.html
15. www.thelocal.se/30394/20101124/
16. latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/nun-abortion-refusalofcare.html
17. serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web2/Bibbo.html
18. www1.union.edu/senerm/Research/Sener_IPRs_Rent_Protection_PAPER_July_06.pdf
19. pineriver.alma.edu/documents/research/environmentalstudies/college/fm7a.jpg
20. www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=5293
21. faculty.winthrop.edu/stonebrakerr/book/supplysidedrugs.htm
22. staff.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/orgcrime.htm
23. www-old.gov.harvard.edu/student/rios/MexicanDrugMarket_Riosv2.doc
24. levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/archive/bitter-medicine.htm
25. www.mmc.edu/www.meharry.org/fl/img/Minority_Health/Cancer/u.s.mortality.gif
26. youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/images/School%20Shootings/Deaths%20in%20young%20people.jpg
27. faculty.cua.edu/sullins/SOC102/Image8.gif
28. faculty.cua.edu/sullins/SOC102/Image10.gif
29. www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/
30. www.marygrove.edu/home/campus/campus-safety/crime-statistics.html
31. research.duke.edu/blog/2010/05/college-substance-abuse-lot-more-alcohol
32. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-15-college-drug-use_N.htm
33. insightcrime.org/investigations/government--multilaterals/item/185-international-narcotics-control-strategy-report-volume-i-drug-and-chemical-control-march-2010
34. english.pravda.ru/business/finance/06-07-2010/114143-large_us_banks_laundered_money_-0/
Header/Title: "Drug Science. No Lies, No Politics. The Truth."
Byline: "The scientific unaltered facts about drugs, recreational and legal."
Meta: "follow, index, archive."
Notes: "Footer contains references and sources."
Body: "follows this line, precedes footer."
Premise:
The US and other national standards offer legal standings on drugs and drug use that do not match scientific data. These laws are supposed or assumed to be politically biased, and may be morality induced rather than factual. The clearest known bias is against the natural herb 'Cannabis Majoris'.[1,2]
Example of Bias:
Black or African and Hispanic Americans are sent to prison for 20 years to life for possession of CM,[3] while Rich and White Americans are given suspended sentences and probation for possession of powder cocaine or barbituates.[4] Wealthy Americans are also given prescriptions for hard drugs such as speed, meth, and other drugs that poor people are sent to jail for using without official permit.[5,6] The permission is difficult to obtain, and Doctors routinely refuse those without health care insurance.[7] ER and free clinics decline to dispense controlled substances at all, even where it would be of medical aid. The default assumption is that poor people are addicts, and wealthy people are sick.[8,9,10]
Drug Addiction side effects:
Addition is a chemical dependency which can cause illness, mental instability, and even death.[11] Treatment and Legal methods of dealing with addictive substances and abusers, or victims, of them have not been reliable without addressing underlying causes.[12] People who have a hard life or reasoning to be depressed, or a mental issue, will resume using drugs after being released from jail or treatment facilities. People who DO NOT have these issue will ALSO relapse into drug abuse if they are not correctly treated, supported, and given power over their addiction.[13]
Systemic Problems of the Health Industry:
Despite efforts to improve the system, communication does not happen between hospitals in a timely manner. Only state and federally mandated incidents are reported, and not accurately. In one hospital, a patient's request for hard drugs might be documented, but in another it will be ignored. Even when documented, it may not be properly reported, or it may be illegal in that state to report out-of-hand without a matching legal incident. Hospitals and Doctors are secretive about what they must report, and how they do so, or for another reason no information on this reporting can not be found outside of voluminous legal codes. As I am a scientist and not an attorney, I will not address this particular facet.
Without solid records, it's easy for addicts to relocate to gain more services when cut off, as many charitable clinics are too cash-starved to perform well or at all in enforcement. Unfunded mandates do result in lack of compliance.[14]
Student run clinics inside of major education institutions are the only ones likely to comply with regulations thoroughly.[15] However, access to these institutions is not universal, despite any claims to the contrary. They deal with known patients, other students, and privileged classes as a priority. Emergencies are stabilized and sent to a professional ER. Triage is a term which most poor people learn to hate, because it is in triage with a low-paid nurse that the determination is made as to whether any assistance will be given. Children who later died have been turned away from hospital ERs when they had no insurance.[15,16]
These problems combine to effectively deny care to the poor, and fail to track potential drug problems.
Drug Industry:
Despite an apparent campaign against drug abuse, the United States promotes and provides monopoly status to some of the world's largest drug cartels, collectively known as the Pharmaceutical Industry. They enjoy an ability to promote lifetime drug dependency based upon a system which works to prohibit cures in preference to drug treatments. Therapy is usually incidental to medication.[17]
The only beneficiary of a continued policy of criminalized street drug use is the Drug Industry. No person, no government, and no other corporations benefit from this hazardous policy. The appearance of Pharma Lobbyists at any 'legalization' vote is damning.[18,19]
The beneficiary of decriminalizing, or legalizing and regulation of drug use is twofold, the people of the United States, and the Government of the United States. The people gain access to safe drugs, treatment, and can then be monitored. Monitoring is not remotely possible while drugs are illegal. The Government saves billions spent on law enforcement[20], and gains billions more in taxes on the now legal drugs.[21] This is simple economics.
Drug damage from use:
Overwhelmingly, the primary harm is criminal activity.[22] Between manufacturing, distributing, selling, and using drugs is a very long list of criminal acts which feeds organized crime. Many thousands of people die every year, not from USING drugs, but from the crime of making and selling them. Competition is deadly, and law enforcement will shoot first, ask questions later. The risks are so high that it seems to be worth risking death to avoid being caught, and the profits are obviously high enough to encourage this.[23] It dwarfs the amount consumers spend on legal drugs.[24]
More people die in car accidents than from drug use deaths AND cancer combined.[25,26]
Drug recreation:
People use drugs because they either are fun to use, or are promoted as fun to use. Being as the illegal drug industry enjoys zero ability to advertise anywhere in the world, the likelihood is that some drugs are enjoyable. Prevention by education does not appear to have offset this trend, as drug use is rising despite decades of education against it. When people feel that life isn't going to end well, that retirement isn't possible, or that they have no future, there is little reason to expect that they wouldn't want to try drugs. The poor overwhelmingly suffer from drug abuse.[27,28,29]
Based upon relatively low rates of death, and obvious long term use throughout America, drugs seem to be more of a problem for those who lack health care and have little or no income. People who work or have a family to live with can enjoy all the drugs that they'd like to. This does little to reduce the demand for illegal drugs! "If drugs were really bad", I've heard teenagers state, "more people would die from them." The common-man perception is that drugs are NOT HARMFUL, but that lack of health care IS harmful. The fact that millions of people are able to use drugs without serious health issues will not diminish this popular view.
Everyone knows college kids use drugs. Anyone who wants to deny this needs to read a newspaper, or perhaps has never been to college. Though I never participated, I learned most of what I know about drugs from going to college, and not from attending the classes! So, 1 in 3 college students uses drugs, is the national average from about 2005. So, there should be a lot of crime on campus, right? Actually, No.[30] Colleges with thousands of students typically experience only a handful of crimes per year, and they are not all drug related. The vast majority of drug related crimes involve alcohol - WHICH IS LEGAL.[31]
Rates of substance abuse now approach 50% in college.[32] Why are we not seeing large scale arrests, massive crime waves, and thousands of students dying every year? Because drug use is not as harmful as authorities want people to believe. The perception of deadly drugs is intended to stop people from using them. In fact, more people die from simply doing stupid things, than from the drugs themselves. Drugs do in fact impair your senses, sometimes fatally. No, that train does not want to play tag with you. If you think it does, you are either high, or you need to stop listening to those voices.
There are few factual statistics about an illegal substance, because it's illegal. There are no sales records. Nobody knows how many people really use drugs every day. It is known to be millions of people PER DAY based upon drug busts and review of the criminal drug trail. It is clear that millions of people are consuming drugs each day based upon the rate of influx to the United States. However, there are also home grown, and home made drugs, which are not tracked at all.[33]
Profiteers:
Despite illegality, US banks, the CIA, and the US government have actually been able to PROFIT from ILLEGAL DRUGS.[34] THIS is something that HAS TO STOP. Our government can not, should not, and must not EVER BE ALLOWED to act illegally, for any reason. A government MAKES the law, and therefor it should not be difficult for a government to OBEY the law they MAKE.
Footer: "sources follow this line."
1. www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
2. www.justice.gov/dea/statistics.html
3. www.nyclu.org/files/MARIJUANA-ARREST-CRUSADE_Final.pdf
4. www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/mjarnyc/researchrpts/
5. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561263/
6. www.nyclu.org/node/1736
7. www.medschool.ucsf.edu/PRIME/conference/abstracts/the-relationship-between-hospital-emergency-room-utilization-rates-and-access-to-care.pdf
8. www.fff.org/freedom/fd0212d.asp
9. www.reconsider.org/wordpress/?page_id=436
10. www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
11. www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2011/January/painkillers-fuel-growth-in-drug-addiction
12. store.samhsa.gov/home
13. www.scripps.edu/philanthropy/drugaddiction.html
14. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/usc_sup_01_2_10_25.html
15. www.thelocal.se/30394/20101124/
16. latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/nun-abortion-refusalofcare.html
17. serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web2/Bibbo.html
18. www1.union.edu/senerm/Research/Sener_IPRs_Rent_Protection_PAPER_July_06.pdf
19. pineriver.alma.edu/documents/research/environmentalstudies/college/fm7a.jpg
20. www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=5293
21. faculty.winthrop.edu/stonebrakerr/book/supplysidedrugs.htm
22. staff.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/orgcrime.htm
23. www-old.gov.harvard.edu/student/rios/MexicanDrugMarket_Riosv2.doc
24. levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/archive/bitter-medicine.htm
25. www.mmc.edu/www.meharry.org/fl/img/Minority_Health/Cancer/u.s.mortality.gif
26. youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/images/School%20Shootings/Deaths%20in%20young%20people.jpg
27. faculty.cua.edu/sullins/SOC102/Image8.gif
28. faculty.cua.edu/sullins/SOC102/Image10.gif
29. www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/
30. www.marygrove.edu/home/campus/campus-safety/crime-statistics.html
31. research.duke.edu/blog/2010/05/college-substance-abuse-lot-more-alcohol
32. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-15-college-drug-use_N.htm
33. insightcrime.org/investigations/government--multilaterals/item/185-international-narcotics-control-strategy-report-volume-i-drug-and-chemical-control-march-2010
34. english.pravda.ru/business/finance/06-07-2010/114143-large_us_banks_laundered_money_-0/
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Transit Woes of Seattle
What's it really COST to build, manage, and use different types of transportation? Rather than opine, simply gaze upon this table of data for a few minutes... [Story at Bottom.]
Link to readable spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rie-fU0yOY0LjVYNgrpE8AGQfG2p7EzTOan6-rRphAc/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJ-mggg
Transportation Costs
Sources for above figures:
http://www.transitchicago.com/about/facts.aspx
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/seattle/traveltimes/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/08/21/sound-transit-2q-2010-ridership-report/
http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_operation
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:H4I8UC743ogJ:www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%2520Generic%2520Response%2520to%2520Cost%2520per%2520Lane%2520Mile%2520for%2520widening%2520and%2520new%2520construction.pdf+highway+cost+per+lane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgavm-C_zX0aXor0oI9dzgwSH2t06a3jrmR5x9VQnAeahGYD1knPos6d0sLbMbliqEYvCnD5KYGwbQiHh9doYEMnidHlufCjveBXFkXwjMlRGA6eM8ZYiJ4gQiSPQCtLF_7AbEi&sig=AHIEtbSGrv30dq7CbqsjxAKRRPGdNgAeSQ
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/table1.htm
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fy$.htm
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ypB0CMebifIJ:www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/31A22376-C7C8-49F0-8309-71125F7A5F5E/0/SUMMARYHIGHWAYSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTCOST31307Final.pdf+highway+cost+per+lane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShlQp41BqYZXVq44UbnCI5vCBu27GD4qSOLiUgmUI78X3fZbkSKuwlIR4PH22AaRrIwQ4WPfzUUR0hcHe85Ojn6zmC6CLb3ZqshlIM4hDbt_84ZdnZNmz2yJ_1ufgFhgWrvDNCV&sig=AHIEtbTy38fDq4L3hzK6GK804XFIpNT4Qg
http://www.artba.org/about/faqs-transportation--general-public/faqs/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009503977_websoundtransit20m.html
These costs are PER MILE of ROAD or rail, not per car or per train engine. Aircraft costs are thrown in as comparison per AIRLINE, rather than lane. Most airports have multiple airlines. For long distances it is still really the least expensive option. But, walking? That's very expensive when you consider the cost of the pathway, and the fact that the path usually occupies space that could be used for traffic. Recreational paths are not considered, and do not impact traffic.
For example, most of the Burke-Gilman trail occupies easement alongside traffic, and could easily be made into one or two more lanes. Where it goes rural, it's not a commuter route, especially in zones where the "trail" is nothing more than signs and you're just riding in normal streets with traffic or on a sidewalk.
The chart reveals some interesting data, and even though I just cobbled it together from the diverse data I was able to dredge up on various transit pages, it rapidly becomes clear why transportation remains an ongoing problem in the United States.
Facts of the chart:
Walking wastes the most lane space. Many thousands of people would need to use EACH mile to make the cost of NOT using a Bus or Train worthwhile. At best I see a few dozen people per hour on the B&G, and they're mostly cyclists.
Cyclists tend to ride a bus partway and ride the bike partway. That data is nearly impossible to obtain, so I haven't compared it. Cyclists in this chart are assumed to ride the entire commute on a bike. They share a feature with motorcycles - it takes a LOT of them to offset the use of mass transit.
Buses have the 2nd lowest cost per mile based on ridership, but have the highest per lane expense! It's the least efficient form of mass transit. Partly because busing shares lanes with traffic, and even the largest buses only hold a few dozen people, but also because of the fuel and maintenance costs buses are grossly inefficient. This chart ignores that mechanical cost though and simply looks at per use cost or passenger efficiency. Busing is worse than any other mode of transit.
Vans and Airlines are both cost effective, but Vans are 2nd worst at passenger efficiency, while airlines are the best choice possible.
Cars and Motorcycles have a higher per mile cost, but are far more passenger efficient. This should come as no surprise to anyone who would rather drive to work alone than ride a bus or carpool.
Light rail costs the most per mile, but has the 3rd highest passenger efficiency, only after both modes of flight. It's the most efficient ground transportation possible.
These figures are not considering gas prices, ticket costs, or any single-use factor. These are facts concerning the construction and maintenance costs of a SYSTEM, and how well that SYSTEM serves the public. An aircraft carrying 400 people is better than 1 person in a car if the destinations are similar. However, the car is better than any other mode of transit for flexibility and costs [road costs, not car costs!]
Buses and trains are hugely expensive systems, and of the two only a train has the carry capacity to offset that cost. Busing has ALWAYS been subsidized by the state and rarely makes any money. That is why you don't have bus lines going right by your house in a rural area. The density of an area has to be HIGH for a bus to be cost effective.
Still, cities rely on busing primarily because it puts more people to work [repairs, drivers, and maintenance] than any other system except an airport. Many cities rely on the state subsidies given for busing, thus their reluctance to develop better systems.
Trains actually have far fewer maintenance and staffing requirements than any other system, and serve the greatest number of people, but not as rapidly as aircraft can. The greater the distance, the more useful it is to fly. [At least until Mag-Lev is developed and widespread.]
As our nation grows more tightly packed, with an excess of 300 million people in America now, the need for additional infrastructure for both transit and employment are more important than ever before. Obama was right to demand a nation wide rail system.
Link to readable spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rie-fU0yOY0LjVYNgrpE8AGQfG2p7EzTOan6-rRphAc/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJ-mggg
Transportation Costs
TYPE Initial Cost Annual Cost* People Cost Origin Trip Cost Typical Distance Cost per Mile Lane USE Cost
Walking 2000000 36000 1 36000.00 120.00 2 60 0.0000277777777777778
Car 2000000 36000 2 18000.00 60.00 26 2.30769230769231 0.0000555555555555556
Bicycle 2000000 36000 1 36000.00 120.00 8 15 0.0000277777777777778
Motorcycle 2000000 36000 1 36000.00 120.00 26 4.61538461538462 0.0000277777777777778
Van 2000000 36000 12 3000.00 10.00 26 0.384615384615385 0.000333333333333333
Bus 2000000 36000 46 782.61 2.61 15 0.173913043478261 0.00127777777777778
Light Rail 180000000 10000000 400 25000.00 83.33 15 5.55555555555556 0.00004
Subway 300000000 20000000 800 25000.00 83.33 31 2.68817204301075 0.00004
Heavy Rail 22000000000 400000000 2000 200000.00 666.67 200 3.33333333333333 0.000005
Charter Air 1200000 800000 120 6666.67 22.22 500 0.0444444444444445 0.00015
Airlines 110000000 60000000 400 150000.00 500.00 1500 0.333333333333333 0.00000666666666666667
Sources for above figures:http://www.transitchicago.com/about/facts.aspx
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/seattle/traveltimes/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/08/21/sound-transit-2q-2010-ridership-report/
http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Costs_of_light_rail_construction_and_operation
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:H4I8UC743ogJ:www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%2520Generic%2520Response%2520to%2520Cost%2520per%2520Lane%2520Mile%2520for%2520widening%2520and%2520new%2520construction.pdf+highway+cost+per+lane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgavm-C_zX0aXor0oI9dzgwSH2t06a3jrmR5x9VQnAeahGYD1knPos6d0sLbMbliqEYvCnD5KYGwbQiHh9doYEMnidHlufCjveBXFkXwjMlRGA6eM8ZYiJ4gQiSPQCtLF_7AbEi&sig=AHIEtbSGrv30dq7CbqsjxAKRRPGdNgAeSQ
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/table1.htm
http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fy$.htm
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ypB0CMebifIJ:www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/31A22376-C7C8-49F0-8309-71125F7A5F5E/0/SUMMARYHIGHWAYSYSTEMIMPROVEMENTCOST31307Final.pdf+highway+cost+per+lane&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShlQp41BqYZXVq44UbnCI5vCBu27GD4qSOLiUgmUI78X3fZbkSKuwlIR4PH22AaRrIwQ4WPfzUUR0hcHe85Ojn6zmC6CLb3ZqshlIM4hDbt_84ZdnZNmz2yJ_1ufgFhgWrvDNCV&sig=AHIEtbTy38fDq4L3hzK6GK804XFIpNT4Qg
http://www.artba.org/about/faqs-transportation--general-public/faqs/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009503977_websoundtransit20m.html
These costs are PER MILE of ROAD or rail, not per car or per train engine. Aircraft costs are thrown in as comparison per AIRLINE, rather than lane. Most airports have multiple airlines. For long distances it is still really the least expensive option. But, walking? That's very expensive when you consider the cost of the pathway, and the fact that the path usually occupies space that could be used for traffic. Recreational paths are not considered, and do not impact traffic.
For example, most of the Burke-Gilman trail occupies easement alongside traffic, and could easily be made into one or two more lanes. Where it goes rural, it's not a commuter route, especially in zones where the "trail" is nothing more than signs and you're just riding in normal streets with traffic or on a sidewalk.
The chart reveals some interesting data, and even though I just cobbled it together from the diverse data I was able to dredge up on various transit pages, it rapidly becomes clear why transportation remains an ongoing problem in the United States.
Facts of the chart:
Walking wastes the most lane space. Many thousands of people would need to use EACH mile to make the cost of NOT using a Bus or Train worthwhile. At best I see a few dozen people per hour on the B&G, and they're mostly cyclists.
Cyclists tend to ride a bus partway and ride the bike partway. That data is nearly impossible to obtain, so I haven't compared it. Cyclists in this chart are assumed to ride the entire commute on a bike. They share a feature with motorcycles - it takes a LOT of them to offset the use of mass transit.
Buses have the 2nd lowest cost per mile based on ridership, but have the highest per lane expense! It's the least efficient form of mass transit. Partly because busing shares lanes with traffic, and even the largest buses only hold a few dozen people, but also because of the fuel and maintenance costs buses are grossly inefficient. This chart ignores that mechanical cost though and simply looks at per use cost or passenger efficiency. Busing is worse than any other mode of transit.
Vans and Airlines are both cost effective, but Vans are 2nd worst at passenger efficiency, while airlines are the best choice possible.
Cars and Motorcycles have a higher per mile cost, but are far more passenger efficient. This should come as no surprise to anyone who would rather drive to work alone than ride a bus or carpool.
Light rail costs the most per mile, but has the 3rd highest passenger efficiency, only after both modes of flight. It's the most efficient ground transportation possible.
These figures are not considering gas prices, ticket costs, or any single-use factor. These are facts concerning the construction and maintenance costs of a SYSTEM, and how well that SYSTEM serves the public. An aircraft carrying 400 people is better than 1 person in a car if the destinations are similar. However, the car is better than any other mode of transit for flexibility and costs [road costs, not car costs!]
Buses and trains are hugely expensive systems, and of the two only a train has the carry capacity to offset that cost. Busing has ALWAYS been subsidized by the state and rarely makes any money. That is why you don't have bus lines going right by your house in a rural area. The density of an area has to be HIGH for a bus to be cost effective.
Still, cities rely on busing primarily because it puts more people to work [repairs, drivers, and maintenance] than any other system except an airport. Many cities rely on the state subsidies given for busing, thus their reluctance to develop better systems.
Trains actually have far fewer maintenance and staffing requirements than any other system, and serve the greatest number of people, but not as rapidly as aircraft can. The greater the distance, the more useful it is to fly. [At least until Mag-Lev is developed and widespread.]
As our nation grows more tightly packed, with an excess of 300 million people in America now, the need for additional infrastructure for both transit and employment are more important than ever before. Obama was right to demand a nation wide rail system.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Iran was never a threat, and the US knows it.
What's a threat to the US isn't Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. It's any nation that doesn't swallow the national "party line" without resistance, and that line is "let our corporations plunder your nation." In Iran's case, firm commitments by Russia and China hinder any attempt by the USA to enter that nation and create more war.[1]
America got Iraq, Russia gets Iran. That's the deal that was cut long before America went after Saddam for a crime he never committed, for weapons that the US never sold him. Funny that the United States never charged Saddam with having the weapons that the US DID sell him. Iraq was nearly 70% funded by the US military industrial complex. His only mistake was seeking full independence from - The United States.
It's hard to read the news today, because every Western paper is shouting hate at China, even the best and most "literary" papers are broadcasting the corporate dogma of "China is evil." Why? Just because they won't let America bleed it dry? China has better human rights than America does at this point. America still executes children, the mentally ill, and people who are known to be innocent. America invades nations that have done nothing, not just not attacking America, but posing no threat to America whatsoever. America still creates, sponsors, and controls terrorist states. America has overthrown Democracies, and admits doing so. China has done none of these things.[2]
Here is what an American military tribunal will get you: Four innocent men sent to prison for life without parole. That's the best justice America has to offer. Professional conviction by high ranking military experts. Review of the case? Oh yeah, they're completely innocent.[3]
America continues to spout increasing record levels of propaganda, far eclipsing both the Nazi war propaganda and the USSR information campaign by a factor of about 40. It's less than 100, but more than 20, and accuracy is very difficult in calculating the extents of this volcano of B.S. The lies are so far-reaching, so constant, that it's like trying to divide by zero.[4]
Hermes is hardly neutral, they read like 'birthers' but raise a lot of valid points when you ignore the anti-Obama and anti-Democrat bias. Most anti-American sites tend to be wingnuts, right? No, actually. Xinhua, the Register, the WSJ, the Guardian, and other newspapers are not at all wingnuts. These are Progressive Liberal Press. Fiscal conservative organs of a commercial media, with a socially liberal bias. One would actually expect them to be pro-America. In general, they are.
The WSJ? Yes, apart from the editorials, the reporting is very excellent and largely liberal, which is to state, most clearly, that they give credit to both sides of an issue - to a fault. Few issues really have ONLY two sides, and rarely are all sides of equal weight. The "liberal press" flaw is that they polarize issues.[5]
If you want to read actual liberal press, and not commercial media, you need to read disinfo.com and sites like it that accurately document history, review ethical processes, and don't parrot the State Dogma. For an idea of how difficult this task is, just finding "real" news, check the wiki article on media ownership[6].
You will be largely limited to small, nonprofit, independent press. But, that's how newspapers started, you say? Well, sort-of. The history of the press in the USA is also mostly B.S. Few were ever neutral, independent, or even at all honest. Many newspapers originating in the West based their entire business on selling lies. It's only since the dawn of the internet that truly free press has arisen.[7]
It is free, liberal, and specialty news websites like groklaw and news lists like reddit that aid the distribution of more factual information in the United States, where turning on the Television is akin to strapping yourself in for a voluntary lobotomy.[8] Unpaid individuals who profit mostly from web banner ads and tee shirt sales are the true investigative reporters of America since the internet began to distribute news.
Dan Rather, the "Last American Journalist" was fired for reporting on the WTC demolition. He was literally thrown out of his job and threatened with arrest. His new site is one of very few liberal media websites still in existence, as the word "Professional" also usually means "Owned." Dan is the last of the un-owned journalists.[9]
Back now to my point about China, and why I love to use Xinhua. The China Daily newspaper, despite being a party-owned Chinese media, is more accurate, more fair, and more often prints actual facts about China than nearly any other press. It certainly does a better job of reporting on China than any Corporate Media in the US does![10]
American politicians and media talk tough, constantly criticize China, and are unforgiving Christians. The facts are that China has a growing robust economy based on a scientifically designed blueprint for government. China has had NO RECESSION. That economy does NOT fluctuate the way America's does. Why not? Because China controls it. The "World Wide Recession?" That's the Western World, not the GLOBE. It's not even close to being a world recession. Only the Western Banking has failed, and cost their governments Trillions.
China has seen nothing but growth for decades now, and is heading into position to become the primary, and possibly ONLY, world power. By 2020, The US will be a sad shadow of its former glory, and is already fading fast. Chinese military spending and economic strength will surpass the United States within five years at the current rate. Some economists say three years. Who says China is already the world's number one power? Americans do.[11]
Also, the facts say it too.[12] The total GDP of the planet Earth is 74 Trillion a year. The US produces 14, China is a close 2nd with 10. Japan has 4. No other nation is even close. So how is China ahead? I've said it before, America has massive debts that are not calculated into the GDP. China holds very little debt. When you add in debt, China has been ahead of the USA for at least three years now. China has one fifth the debt of America proportionately.[13]
When you add in the fact that America is growing at 2%, not counting debt of 12%, and China is growing at 10%, China is winning and quickly. You can do the math in your head. Point 1 times 14 is .14, doubled for 2 percent is .28, and then added back to 14 is only 14.28 for the US in 2011. Now do China. See? How fast they overtake America is largely influenced by debts and the banking industry, and whose banking industry is rock stable right now? China. I'd be investing in Chinese advertising companies, if I were you. You have at best, five years to learn how.
1. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/20/c_13700338.htm
2. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/20/c_13699250.htm
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12237023
4. http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
5. http://www.disinfo.com/
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
7. http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ip_speech.htm
8. http://groklaw.net/
9. http://www.hd.net/programs/danrather/
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_media
11. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-12/americans-say-china-now-world-s-top-economic-power-poll-finds.html
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
America got Iraq, Russia gets Iran. That's the deal that was cut long before America went after Saddam for a crime he never committed, for weapons that the US never sold him. Funny that the United States never charged Saddam with having the weapons that the US DID sell him. Iraq was nearly 70% funded by the US military industrial complex. His only mistake was seeking full independence from - The United States.
It's hard to read the news today, because every Western paper is shouting hate at China, even the best and most "literary" papers are broadcasting the corporate dogma of "China is evil." Why? Just because they won't let America bleed it dry? China has better human rights than America does at this point. America still executes children, the mentally ill, and people who are known to be innocent. America invades nations that have done nothing, not just not attacking America, but posing no threat to America whatsoever. America still creates, sponsors, and controls terrorist states. America has overthrown Democracies, and admits doing so. China has done none of these things.[2]
Here is what an American military tribunal will get you: Four innocent men sent to prison for life without parole. That's the best justice America has to offer. Professional conviction by high ranking military experts. Review of the case? Oh yeah, they're completely innocent.[3]
America continues to spout increasing record levels of propaganda, far eclipsing both the Nazi war propaganda and the USSR information campaign by a factor of about 40. It's less than 100, but more than 20, and accuracy is very difficult in calculating the extents of this volcano of B.S. The lies are so far-reaching, so constant, that it's like trying to divide by zero.[4]
Hermes is hardly neutral, they read like 'birthers' but raise a lot of valid points when you ignore the anti-Obama and anti-Democrat bias. Most anti-American sites tend to be wingnuts, right? No, actually. Xinhua, the Register, the WSJ, the Guardian, and other newspapers are not at all wingnuts. These are Progressive Liberal Press. Fiscal conservative organs of a commercial media, with a socially liberal bias. One would actually expect them to be pro-America. In general, they are.
The WSJ? Yes, apart from the editorials, the reporting is very excellent and largely liberal, which is to state, most clearly, that they give credit to both sides of an issue - to a fault. Few issues really have ONLY two sides, and rarely are all sides of equal weight. The "liberal press" flaw is that they polarize issues.[5]
If you want to read actual liberal press, and not commercial media, you need to read disinfo.com and sites like it that accurately document history, review ethical processes, and don't parrot the State Dogma. For an idea of how difficult this task is, just finding "real" news, check the wiki article on media ownership[6].
You will be largely limited to small, nonprofit, independent press. But, that's how newspapers started, you say? Well, sort-of. The history of the press in the USA is also mostly B.S. Few were ever neutral, independent, or even at all honest. Many newspapers originating in the West based their entire business on selling lies. It's only since the dawn of the internet that truly free press has arisen.[7]
It is free, liberal, and specialty news websites like groklaw and news lists like reddit that aid the distribution of more factual information in the United States, where turning on the Television is akin to strapping yourself in for a voluntary lobotomy.[8] Unpaid individuals who profit mostly from web banner ads and tee shirt sales are the true investigative reporters of America since the internet began to distribute news.
Dan Rather, the "Last American Journalist" was fired for reporting on the WTC demolition. He was literally thrown out of his job and threatened with arrest. His new site is one of very few liberal media websites still in existence, as the word "Professional" also usually means "Owned." Dan is the last of the un-owned journalists.[9]
Back now to my point about China, and why I love to use Xinhua. The China Daily newspaper, despite being a party-owned Chinese media, is more accurate, more fair, and more often prints actual facts about China than nearly any other press. It certainly does a better job of reporting on China than any Corporate Media in the US does![10]
American politicians and media talk tough, constantly criticize China, and are unforgiving Christians. The facts are that China has a growing robust economy based on a scientifically designed blueprint for government. China has had NO RECESSION. That economy does NOT fluctuate the way America's does. Why not? Because China controls it. The "World Wide Recession?" That's the Western World, not the GLOBE. It's not even close to being a world recession. Only the Western Banking has failed, and cost their governments Trillions.
China has seen nothing but growth for decades now, and is heading into position to become the primary, and possibly ONLY, world power. By 2020, The US will be a sad shadow of its former glory, and is already fading fast. Chinese military spending and economic strength will surpass the United States within five years at the current rate. Some economists say three years. Who says China is already the world's number one power? Americans do.[11]
Also, the facts say it too.[12] The total GDP of the planet Earth is 74 Trillion a year. The US produces 14, China is a close 2nd with 10. Japan has 4. No other nation is even close. So how is China ahead? I've said it before, America has massive debts that are not calculated into the GDP. China holds very little debt. When you add in debt, China has been ahead of the USA for at least three years now. China has one fifth the debt of America proportionately.[13]
When you add in the fact that America is growing at 2%, not counting debt of 12%, and China is growing at 10%, China is winning and quickly. You can do the math in your head. Point 1 times 14 is .14, doubled for 2 percent is .28, and then added back to 14 is only 14.28 for the US in 2011. Now do China. See? How fast they overtake America is largely influenced by debts and the banking industry, and whose banking industry is rock stable right now? China. I'd be investing in Chinese advertising companies, if I were you. You have at best, five years to learn how.
1. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/20/c_13700338.htm
2. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/20/c_13699250.htm
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12237023
4. http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
5. http://www.disinfo.com/
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
7. http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ip_speech.htm
8. http://groklaw.net/
9. http://www.hd.net/programs/danrather/
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_media
11. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-12/americans-say-china-now-world-s-top-economic-power-poll-finds.html
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Friday, January 7, 2011
Bill, you "dun goofed."
MSFT is taking a hard right turn, right for a cliff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/07/microsoft-arm-deal-for-windows-analysis
ARM processors are very well coded for, by a host of far-reaching, widely experienced software systems, of which MSFT has zero ability to compete with. MSFT typically needs three service packs to stabilize any offering that's ever been released by the company. Most corporations won't touch a MSFT product until at least SP1 is released, as that is generally viewed as the non-beta version.
The 12 year development window of MSFT doesn't bode well for their desire and direction in the ARM market, a fiercely competitive, and quickly changing market that's trounced AT&T, Qwest, and others. Little upstart cell phone companies like Cingular came along and kicked their asses, literally taking control of the market, and buying out AT&T.
The little companies are quick, viciously competitive, capable, and above all: talented. MSFT can't claim any of those titles. MSFT code is burdensome, huge, buggy, and prone to failure. Intel, MSFT's longest and best partner, and taken to publicly outing MSFT for failure to fix problems in all the Windows OS versions.
Intel isn't a nice company, but they know business, and despite anti-trust and even RICO problems with Intel, they know how to make chips. When they tell you to reduce the size of something to get it to run on their chip, you'd be an idiot to ignore the request. MSFT has ignored pleas from Intel for more than a decade now on streamlining the Windows bloated OS.
Even "CE", "7", and other specialized versions of the MSFT fleet of bloatware are huge when compared to the fast, not-crashing, and above all tiny software of competitors. RIM came along and trounced the phone industry, and spurned MSFT products as "useless." They based the Blackberry OS on a proprietary incarnation of Unix, and it still rocks. I use a "BB" and do not own an "iPhone." I love Apple, but the primary reasons for choosing RIM remain SECURITY, and COST. RIM's phone's don't leak data to third parties, don't crash, and above all - they don't delete what I've loaded on them. I don't have to pay RIM a fee to customize my phone "desktop" or play music. I can load my own music on the phone as ringtones without paying fees.
MSFT has about a snowball's chance in hell of catching up to RIM, let alone Android!
I don't applaud this because I hate MSFT, rather I applaud this because MSFT needs to experience a serious failure in revenue before it will ever change. In the PC market they colluded with Intel to prevent competition. Both were charged with crimes and convicted. Both Intel and MSFT are anti-trust violators. They CAN NOT function in a free market.
MSFT lacks the speed, agility, and programming talent required to take on either RIM or Google. The software from Redmond is decades behind Unix based OSes. Most people are completely unaware that practically every piece of software now in use on Earth is derived from a version of UNIX.
Microsoft is the lone holdout, because the truth is, Redmond isn't good at programming. They're good at buying up software and absorbing companies, then repackaging that product as their own. Haven't you wondered why Excel, Access, and Word still DO NOT interoperate after more than 18 years? Is TWO DECADES too much time to get an application to cooperate with another application THAT IS RELEASED IN THE SAME PACKAGE?
The reason MS Office won't, and probably never will work very well, is that each of its components were acquired separately, and never designed to work in the Office Suite they're wrapped in. Rather than FIX IT, MSFT took the typical "rewrap" approach and kludged it. To this day you still can not open a Word or Excel file with Access. I had to use custom software to import and export documents when I worked at the US Census's property management office last year. Even files from the SAME product fail to import into a NEWER version of that product.
MSFT's problems are so systemic, so cultural, and so based upon an ability to AVOID competition with lawsuits and no-bid contracts, that in an environment where they can not hold a monopoly, they are doomed.
Don't take my word for it though, read that guy up above. He knows what he's talking about. Or, you can just look at the sales figures. MSFT didn't enter the phone market until years too late, and they've never gained a foothold. Products like Mobil 5, Zune, and the Surface, were all years behind other products that worked better. The consumer never embraced Microsoft, it was forced on them. In the phone market, consumers chose anything but Microsoft, because they had a choice.
I don't expect this to change. You can polish it for 18 years, but a turd is still going to be a turd. I order new computers as either 'bare bones' or 'custom assembled' because not only do I get better pricing, I don't pay for Microsoft.
Some of the best games entering the market in 2010 were web based, and a web based game doesn't know what operating system you're using. It doesn't matter much, except that a good OS will run faster even with web apps. I've never had linux crash. Not once in 21 years. I've never had a virus. Software that doesn't work simply just doesn't work, and linux continues working fine.
People keep predicting the death of the PC, but that's one thing the market gurus have been wrong about for 10 years now. A phone doesn't have a quad-core 3ghz processor, 8 gigs of RAM, 2 terabytes of storage, DVD drives, 22" 1080p monitors, or any of the other large-format hardware that a PC has always used.
When IBM introduces a quantum processor for a phone with a 30" holographic display, datacube memory in the terabytes, and gigabyte wireless, then maybe the PC will begin to slide in popularity. Until then, I'm sipping Starbucks[tm] in my 450.00 task chair. There's a lot to be said for having a nice office, and a good gaming PC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/07/microsoft-arm-deal-for-windows-analysis
ARM processors are very well coded for, by a host of far-reaching, widely experienced software systems, of which MSFT has zero ability to compete with. MSFT typically needs three service packs to stabilize any offering that's ever been released by the company. Most corporations won't touch a MSFT product until at least SP1 is released, as that is generally viewed as the non-beta version.
The 12 year development window of MSFT doesn't bode well for their desire and direction in the ARM market, a fiercely competitive, and quickly changing market that's trounced AT&T, Qwest, and others. Little upstart cell phone companies like Cingular came along and kicked their asses, literally taking control of the market, and buying out AT&T.
The little companies are quick, viciously competitive, capable, and above all: talented. MSFT can't claim any of those titles. MSFT code is burdensome, huge, buggy, and prone to failure. Intel, MSFT's longest and best partner, and taken to publicly outing MSFT for failure to fix problems in all the Windows OS versions.
Intel isn't a nice company, but they know business, and despite anti-trust and even RICO problems with Intel, they know how to make chips. When they tell you to reduce the size of something to get it to run on their chip, you'd be an idiot to ignore the request. MSFT has ignored pleas from Intel for more than a decade now on streamlining the Windows bloated OS.
Even "CE", "7", and other specialized versions of the MSFT fleet of bloatware are huge when compared to the fast, not-crashing, and above all tiny software of competitors. RIM came along and trounced the phone industry, and spurned MSFT products as "useless." They based the Blackberry OS on a proprietary incarnation of Unix, and it still rocks. I use a "BB" and do not own an "iPhone." I love Apple, but the primary reasons for choosing RIM remain SECURITY, and COST. RIM's phone's don't leak data to third parties, don't crash, and above all - they don't delete what I've loaded on them. I don't have to pay RIM a fee to customize my phone "desktop" or play music. I can load my own music on the phone as ringtones without paying fees.
MSFT has about a snowball's chance in hell of catching up to RIM, let alone Android!
I don't applaud this because I hate MSFT, rather I applaud this because MSFT needs to experience a serious failure in revenue before it will ever change. In the PC market they colluded with Intel to prevent competition. Both were charged with crimes and convicted. Both Intel and MSFT are anti-trust violators. They CAN NOT function in a free market.
MSFT lacks the speed, agility, and programming talent required to take on either RIM or Google. The software from Redmond is decades behind Unix based OSes. Most people are completely unaware that practically every piece of software now in use on Earth is derived from a version of UNIX.
Microsoft is the lone holdout, because the truth is, Redmond isn't good at programming. They're good at buying up software and absorbing companies, then repackaging that product as their own. Haven't you wondered why Excel, Access, and Word still DO NOT interoperate after more than 18 years? Is TWO DECADES too much time to get an application to cooperate with another application THAT IS RELEASED IN THE SAME PACKAGE?
The reason MS Office won't, and probably never will work very well, is that each of its components were acquired separately, and never designed to work in the Office Suite they're wrapped in. Rather than FIX IT, MSFT took the typical "rewrap" approach and kludged it. To this day you still can not open a Word or Excel file with Access. I had to use custom software to import and export documents when I worked at the US Census's property management office last year. Even files from the SAME product fail to import into a NEWER version of that product.
MSFT's problems are so systemic, so cultural, and so based upon an ability to AVOID competition with lawsuits and no-bid contracts, that in an environment where they can not hold a monopoly, they are doomed.
Don't take my word for it though, read that guy up above. He knows what he's talking about. Or, you can just look at the sales figures. MSFT didn't enter the phone market until years too late, and they've never gained a foothold. Products like Mobil 5, Zune, and the Surface, were all years behind other products that worked better. The consumer never embraced Microsoft, it was forced on them. In the phone market, consumers chose anything but Microsoft, because they had a choice.
I don't expect this to change. You can polish it for 18 years, but a turd is still going to be a turd. I order new computers as either 'bare bones' or 'custom assembled' because not only do I get better pricing, I don't pay for Microsoft.
Some of the best games entering the market in 2010 were web based, and a web based game doesn't know what operating system you're using. It doesn't matter much, except that a good OS will run faster even with web apps. I've never had linux crash. Not once in 21 years. I've never had a virus. Software that doesn't work simply just doesn't work, and linux continues working fine.
People keep predicting the death of the PC, but that's one thing the market gurus have been wrong about for 10 years now. A phone doesn't have a quad-core 3ghz processor, 8 gigs of RAM, 2 terabytes of storage, DVD drives, 22" 1080p monitors, or any of the other large-format hardware that a PC has always used.
When IBM introduces a quantum processor for a phone with a 30" holographic display, datacube memory in the terabytes, and gigabyte wireless, then maybe the PC will begin to slide in popularity. Until then, I'm sipping Starbucks[tm] in my 450.00 task chair. There's a lot to be said for having a nice office, and a good gaming PC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)