Bicycling for fun and profit.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/4/2017 2:12 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.


We do not disagree. Welcome the the new communist America,
as demanded by the voters, dammit.

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

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.

On 5/4/2017 6:36 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. 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.


Well, in a free market, it's man against man.

Under Marxist communism, scientifically applied, it's the
other way around.

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

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:05:42 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 6:36 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. 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.


Well, in a free market, it's man against man.

Under Marxist communism, scientifically applied, it's the
other way around.

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

I think that you discovered the flaw in the system. Though I would have put it:

In one case it's man against man. In the other the man hasn't a chance.

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.


--
- Frank Krygowski