Bicycling for fun and profit.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you want to be philosophical then yes, the majority of N. Koreans
probably would feel that what they know as communism is the best
thing. After all, that is the best system that they have ever
experienced as before 1948 they were governed by edict from Japan.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 16:36:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you believe that Cuba likes communism why do you suppose it's a death penalty to leave?

Venezuela started turning socialist circa 1931. Before this time Venezuela was completely self supporting with the largest food exports in the Americas behind only the US.

With the advent of socialism most of the small farmers moved to the cities and went on welfare. Since that occurred Venezuela has stopped being self supporting and relies upon oil exports and steel, aluminum and other things like concrete.

They are no longer self sufficient and a drop in the market value of oil would leave them starving.

There isn't one single case of a successful communism and there aren't even any successful real socialisms.

One wise man I know told me that monasteries are successful applications
of communism. I think he may be right. And there were some other
religious sects that succeeded with forms of communism for a while. The
Shakers are one example, I think. (I wonder if celibacy is a requirement
for success in communism.)

The concept certainly doesn't work well for ordinary people, or even for
extraordinary people who aren't passionately motivated by spiritual or
other influences.

A monastery most assuredly is NOT a communism or a socialism of any sort.
There is decidedly a rank and file. Theoretically in a socialism all
are equal. Yeah, just like Kim Jong-un having his uncle assassinated
for disagreeing with him. Or his Army commander executed for telling
him that they were putting so much money into the military that the
people were starving.

But there is always strong men in any group of humans. Even the most
primitive. In Irian Jaya, as it was known, where men run around almost
naked there is a "Chief" who is usually the biggest and strongest and
owns the most pigs.

On Thu, 4 May 2017 21:39:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/4/2017 7:36 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you believe that Cuba likes communism why do you suppose it's a death penalty to leave?

Venezuela started turning socialist circa 1931. Before this time Venezuela was completely self supporting with the largest food exports in the Americas behind only the US.

With the advent of socialism most of the small farmers moved to the cities and went on welfare. Since that occurred Venezuela has stopped being self supporting and relies upon oil exports and steel, aluminum and other things like concrete.

They are no longer self sufficient and a drop in the market value of oil would leave them starving.

There isn't one single case of a successful communism and there aren't even any successful real socialisms.

One wise man I know told me that monasteries are successful applications
of communism. I think he may be right. And there were some other
religious sects that succeeded with forms of communism for a while. The
Shakers are one example, I think. (I wonder if celibacy is a requirement
for success in communism.)

The concept certainly doesn't work well for ordinary people, or even for
extraordinary people who aren't passionately motivated by spiritual or
other influences.

A monastery most assuredly is NOT a communism or a socialism of any sort. There is decidedly a rank and file. Theoretically in a socialism all are equal.

If that's part of your definition, then communism or socialism by your
definition have never existed anywhere. That makes further discussion moot.

Actually the original Marx theories might well apply. I believe that
the original Marxist theory depicted the proletariat as requiring an
initial period of education in the system's theories and functions and
this learning period would require a strong central leadership which,
as the proletariat became more attuned to the system's finer points,
would eventually wither away and true socialistic equality would be
attained.

The monitories appear to be in an early stage requiring strict
discipline and education.

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:39:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 7:36 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses)..

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth.. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you believe that Cuba likes communism why do you suppose it's a death penalty to leave?

Venezuela started turning socialist circa 1931. Before this time Venezuela was completely self supporting with the largest food exports in the Americas behind only the US.

With the advent of socialism most of the small farmers moved to the cities and went on welfare. Since that occurred Venezuela has stopped being self supporting and relies upon oil exports and steel, aluminum and other things like concrete.

They are no longer self sufficient and a drop in the market value of oil would leave them starving.

There isn't one single case of a successful communism and there aren't even any successful real socialisms.

One wise man I know told me that monasteries are successful applications
of communism. I think he may be right. And there were some other
religious sects that succeeded with forms of communism for a while. The
Shakers are one example, I think. (I wonder if celibacy is a requirement
for success in communism.)

The concept certainly doesn't work well for ordinary people, or even for
extraordinary people who aren't passionately motivated by spiritual or
other influences.

A monastery most assuredly is NOT a communism or a socialism of any sort. There is decidedly a rank and file. Theoretically in a socialism all are equal.

If that's part of your definition, then communism or socialism by your
definition have never existed anywhere. That makes further discussion moot.

May I remind you that you are the one that compared a monastery with a socialism. And that has never been even close to reality. In the earliest days of Christianity under the Romans the priests, bishops, archbishops etc. were ALL part of the Royalty with their inbred ranking systems. Not for one second has the Catholic Church or their monasteries ever had a socialistic structure.

This ranking system even fell to the nunneries. Everyone in the Catholic Church beneath the level of Pope had someone to refer to as "holy father" or some such if memory serves.

Pope, Cardinal, Cardinal-nephew, Cardinal protector, Crown-cardinal, Cardinal Vicar Moderator of the curia, Chaplain of His Holiness, Papal legate, Papal majordomo, Apostolic Nuncio, Apostolic Delegate, Apostolic Syndic, Apostolic visitor, Vicar Apostolic, Apostolic Exarch, Apostolic Prefect, Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, Eparch, Metropolitan Patriarch, Bishop, Archbishop, Bishop Emeritus, Diocesan bishop, Major archbishop, Primate Suffragan, bishop Titular, bishop Coadjutor, bishop Auxiliary, bishop Territorial prelate, Territorial abbot, etc.

As you can see, rank and file were the name of the game. This was one of the major reasons of the Protestant movement.

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:41 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you want to be philosophical then yes, the majority of N. Koreans
probably would feel that what they know as communism is the best
thing. After all, that is the best system that they have ever
experienced as before 1948 they were governed by edict from Japan.

The majority of the North Koreans know that South Korea is free and unbelievably wealthy by their standards. Don't believe for one second that the way in which they act in government isn't to maintain their own lives.

On 5/5/2017 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:39:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 7:36 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:


A monastery most assuredly is NOT a communism or a socialism of any sort. There is decidedly a rank and file. Theoretically in a socialism all are equal.

If that's part of your definition, then communism or socialism by your
definition have never existed anywhere. That makes further discussion moot.

May I remind you that you are the one that compared a monastery with a socialism. And that has never been even close to reality. In the earliest days of Christianity under the Romans the priests, bishops, archbishops etc. were ALL part of the Royalty with their inbred ranking systems. Not for one second has the Catholic Church or their monasteries ever had a socialistic structure.

This ranking system even fell to the nunneries. Everyone in the Catholic Church beneath the level of Pope had someone to refer to as "holy father" or some such if memory serves.

Pope, Cardinal, Cardinal-nephew, Cardinal protector, Crown-cardinal, Cardinal Vicar Moderator of the curia, Chaplain of His Holiness, Papal legate, Papal majordomo, Apostolic Nuncio, Apostolic Delegate, Apostolic Syndic, Apostolic visitor, Vicar Apostolic, Apostolic Exarch, Apostolic Prefect, Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, Eparch, Metropolitan Patriarch, Bishop, Archbishop, Bishop Emeritus, Diocesan bishop, Major archbishop, Primate Suffragan, bishop Titular, bishop Coadjutor, bishop Auxiliary, bishop Territorial prelate, Territorial abbot, etc.

As you can see, rank and file were the name of the game. This was one of the major reasons of the Protestant movement.

I think you missed the point.

If you specify that communism or socialism must, by definition, include
a complete lack of "rank," then there has never been communism or
socialism. So there's little point in discussing it.

(According to the Acts of the Apostles "All the believers were together
and had everything in common." But there was rank, because Peter was
considered to be the top guy. So according to you, even that was not
socialism or communism.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:00:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/5/2017 11:23 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:39:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 7:36 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:


A monastery most assuredly is NOT a communism or a socialism of any sort. There is decidedly a rank and file. Theoretically in a socialism all are equal.

If that's part of your definition, then communism or socialism by your
definition have never existed anywhere. That makes further discussion moot.

May I remind you that you are the one that compared a monastery with a socialism. And that has never been even close to reality. In the earliest days of Christianity under the Romans the priests, bishops, archbishops etc. were ALL part of the Royalty with their inbred ranking systems. Not for one second has the Catholic Church or their monasteries ever had a socialistic structure.

This ranking system even fell to the nunneries. Everyone in the Catholic Church beneath the level of Pope had someone to refer to as "holy father" or some such if memory serves.

Pope, Cardinal, Cardinal-nephew, Cardinal protector, Crown-cardinal, Cardinal Vicar Moderator of the curia, Chaplain of His Holiness, Papal legate, Papal majordomo, Apostolic Nuncio, Apostolic Delegate, Apostolic Syndic, Apostolic visitor, Vicar Apostolic, Apostolic Exarch, Apostolic Prefect, Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, Eparch, Metropolitan Patriarch, Bishop, Archbishop, Bishop Emeritus, Diocesan bishop, Major archbishop, Primate Suffragan, bishop Titular, bishop Coadjutor, bishop Auxiliary, bishop Territorial prelate, Territorial abbot, etc.

As you can see, rank and file were the name of the game. This was one of the major reasons of the Protestant movement.

I think you missed the point.

If you specify that communism or socialism must, by definition, include
a complete lack of "rank," then there has never been communism or
socialism. So there's little point in discussing it.

(According to the Acts of the Apostles "All the believers were together
and had everything in common." But there was rank, because Peter was
considered to be the top guy. So according to you, even that was not
socialism or communism.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Don't you think that the complaints about Communism is that it was and always had to be a lie? That all it did was to put a strong man in charge that ran everything the way he saw fit?

On Fri, 5 May 2017 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:41 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you want to be philosophical then yes, the majority of N. Koreans
probably would feel that what they know as communism is the best
thing. After all, that is the best system that they have ever
experienced as before 1948 they were governed by edict from Japan.

The majority of the North Koreans know that South Korea is free and unbelievably wealthy by their standards. Don't believe for one second that the way in which they act in government isn't to maintain their own lives.

Do they? And how do you know that? Have you made extensive trips to N.
Korea? Do you speak Korean? Are you acquainted with N. Koreans
sufficient well that you can discover what the average N. Korean
believes?

I certainly doubt it. I think that you get your knowledge from reading
what some dissident wrote and remember that the word "dissident" means
one who disagrees.

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:44:52 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:41 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you want to be philosophical then yes, the majority of N. Koreans
probably would feel that what they know as communism is the best
thing. After all, that is the best system that they have ever
experienced as before 1948 they were governed by edict from Japan.

The majority of the North Koreans know that South Korea is free and unbelievably wealthy by their standards. Don't believe for one second that the way in which they act in government isn't to maintain their own lives.

Do they? And how do you know that? Have you made extensive trips to N.
Korea? Do you speak Korean? Are you acquainted with N. Koreans
sufficient well that you can discover what the average N. Korean
believes?

I certainly doubt it. I think that you get your knowledge from reading
what some dissident wrote and remember that the word "dissident" means
one who disagrees.

Well aren't you one of those that is a dissident with Brexit?

On Sat, 6 May 2017 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 6:44:52 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2017 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:41 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:12:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 8:30:24 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 10:16 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:23:51 PM UTC-7, Doug Cimperman wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:29 PM, wrote:
My wife was using her "map" program and noticed that you could get to where she was going faster on a bicycle than on public transit (buses).

This is the classic 'accessibility problem' with mass transit.

To be useful to a lot of people, mass transit must have a lot of places
to board, but adding more stops makes the average speed slower until
it's no longer desirable to use. In many modern cities, mass-transit is
only mostly utilized during rush hours. It runs mostly empty much of the
rest of the time. It usually offers a lower energy-cost-per-mile
per-person, but that is often assuming that it is always filled to 100%
capacity, which it usually /isn't/. And the accessibility problems make
it challenging to use in many circumstances.

This is the reason that smaller single-person vehicles will eventually
win out over mass-transit: a single-person vehicle takes you from start
to your destination directly (as quickly as possible), it is always
filled to 100% rider capacity whenever it is used, it can switch routes
as needed to avoid traffic, construction or other interruptions and it
doesn't use/waste energy or contribute to traffic congestion when there
is nobody riding it (because it stays parked). These are all tricks that
mass-transit can't do now, and won't /ever/ be able to do.
,,,,,
About the only argument against single vehicles is lack of parking
space--but with the arrival of self-driving cars now, that may cease to
be an issue even in urban areas. With that ability the car can take you
to your destination, and then drive itself to a parking area some
distance away, and then return to pick you up again when you summon it.

Mass transit has fundamental utilization issues that cannot be resolved,
but small single-person vehicles have technical issues that can still be
greatly improved upon. Mass-transit as a concept is a dead end; you can
try to spit-shine it but it isn't going to get any better than it is today.

I like to troll leftist forums with this stuff.
-you can too, if you wanna.
For some reason leftists tend to hate cars even more than bicyclists do.

But leftists tend to be young people that grow up. Since generations tend to be grouped, the political spectrum seems to change back and forth. The leftists that seem so common today will be gone to be replaced by the same people with the opposite political ideas in a couple of years.


Oh really? Like Venezuela, like Cuba or more like DPRK?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Wait a minute - do you really think that the people of North Korea are for communism after being literally forced into it in 1948 by the division of it from South Korea by treaty between the USSR and America after WW II?

If you want to be philosophical then yes, the majority of N. Koreans
probably would feel that what they know as communism is the best
thing. After all, that is the best system that they have ever
experienced as before 1948 they were governed by edict from Japan.

The majority of the North Koreans know that South Korea is free and unbelievably wealthy by their standards. Don't believe for one second that the way in which they act in government isn't to maintain their own lives.

Do they? And how do you know that? Have you made extensive trips to N.
Korea? Do you speak Korean? Are you acquainted with N. Koreans
sufficient well that you can discover what the average N. Korean
believes?

I certainly doubt it. I think that you get your knowledge from reading
what some dissident wrote and remember that the word "dissident" means
one who disagrees.

Well aren't you one of those that is a dissident with Brexit?

I don't think so. At least I can't remember ever having any particular
interest in Great Britain.

Well, perhaps when I was back in school and lusted after an Ariel
Square Four, but that ended as soon as I talked to someone that
actually owned one.