New to the site? Welcome!

You might be interested to know that there's two different kind of posts on this blog: "Thought of the Day" and "Normal". The "Thought of the Day" category is a once-a-day random tidbit, usually a funny video or picture, and the "Normal" is just what you'd expect from a blog like this:

Unicorn-Butterfly Soup.

--Kyle

p.s. the subscription options to the left (psst! <---- that way) reflect the same content options

Suspended Monorail Mass Transit? Really?

Wow, this is super cool! I can’t wait until I can ride on a suspended monorail train with everyone who used to ride the bus!

Yeah, I’m just kidding.

The concept of mass transit is one that has been shown to be mildly successful within a certain demographic, but not what it’s really intended to be. And the future, as many people see it, is supposed to be path free for travel (aka no roads or rails), since we’re going to be using some sort of flying car / teleporting / personal transport device. So why would these people bother?

No Customers

Europe is fond of their railway system. Disney is fond of their monorail system. Certain cities are fond of their electric railway system. But a country-wide method of transportation via suspended rail will never be popular… just look at Amtrak. As soon as planes became a valid way of transport, railroads went into a steep decline. Nowadays, Amtrak is used for certain commuter travel (like from Baltimore, MD to Washington D.C.), but most people avoid long trips on it, and for good reason. Why would you spend 3 days traveling between American coasts, when you can easily do it in 6hrs. by plane?

Bullet Train
Cool in Europe. Us cowboys are too cool for trains.

Yeah, Too Much Money

Despite the problem of attracting customers, there’s another major problem: structure. Yes, it’s great that the idea for this new system involves using the body of unused planes as the train cars… but how about building and maintaining a huge network for these to run on? Modern rail systems are relatively easy to maintain… you just nail a new rail in when it’s required. Now, imagine that, but upside down. Yeah, not so easy or inexpensive, is it? Especially when the trains will be going considerably faster than they do when in a normal ground-based configuration…

Plane
The skies are definitely too open to be probable for travel in the future.

Replacing Cars? I Think Not.

Here’s another one to tickle your thought process… they claim it’s the “solution” to the problem of highway congestion and pollution by cars. Right. Will there be a stop at every street corner? Will there be a stop at every place that people will want to go? That’s what I thought, Ms. Einstein, there won’t be. And until there is a stop/boarding location for any form of mass transit, it will never become immensely popular for the pure reason that people still have to get to and from that location, and it’s not worth the effort if you can bypass going there and waiting for another vehicle to take you to somewhere else.

Subway
I can’t wait until there’s one of these right outside my door…

Shadows of Light

Something tells me that the average homeowner that lives in the suburbs is not going to want a giant shadow cast over their house from a suspended monorail system, let alone all the noise and other things associated with it. If Average Joe and Average Veronica don’t like having a bus stop on their street corner, what makes you think that a GIANT SUSPENDED TRAIN is going to be any better?

Stupid

Thanks, I’m glad I took the time to read about your great idea. Maybe someday I’ll ride on this visionary suspended monorail system, sell my car, and never take a plane anywhere again.

Future Car
More likely than trains, you Communist wannabe.

Just kidding, because this will never happen. Way to go, minds of America! Instead of solving current problems, you try to replace them with idealistic solutions that only a small child and a homeless man could love!

Bad Code Is Now “Bad”?

I’m sorry, I was under the impression that programmers had come to a general conclusion in the ’70s that “bad” code was unacceptable, and the sign of either someone of inferior skills, or of low intelligence. Apparently, I was wrong, and “bad” code has now been deemed “bad”

If you read the article, you’ll find a very thorough discussion of bad code, modern application architecture, and people’s experience levels. Believe it or not, I agree with (and actually liked) the larger part of the work. Here’s a breakdown, from my perspective:

Web 2.0

While “Web 2.0″ is interesting, and useful to a certain extent (and I run a company involved in a “Web 2.0″ project…), the ratio of intelligence and programming skills to lack thereof is astounding. And not in a good way.

Will Code for Food
Maybe you should hire him, he’s probably awesome.

Personally, I have the programming knowledge and “awareness” of someone many years my senior; however, this is most often not the case. Digg’s faceman, Kevin Rose, is a likable guy (supposedly), and he’s generally given credit for “running” and “creating” Digg. Does no-one else in the world understand that Kevin has little to no programming experience, and he outsources all his ideas? This is a repetition of a theme throughout Silicon Valley.

The flipside of Digg’s situation is when you have a large handful of developers who collectively have the programming IQ of a small child.

Stupid Pages
“Yeah man, I code!”

Why?

Why am I harping on “Web 2.0″? As was mentioned in the article I linked to, depending on the web application you come across, it can be several layers of abstraction away from actual programming… each of which requires processing power, and by association is slow and waste energy.

Look at another of Rose’s creations, Pownce. Seriously? “Made with Django” screams “we didn’t write most of the code, and instead used a library that sits above another language”. And, if you actually use it, you find that they use AJAX in places that make no sense. For example, if you link to a video or a picture, it embeds it. But only at runtime, and is Javascript based. WHY? I just wrote something about a weekago that is similar, and it was done in PHP… it takes about 98% of the loadtime of using the Javascript version.

Failure
And I bet Leah Culver doesn’t even run…

Waste

Ever heard of “Flex“? It’s, in principle, a way for people who are lazy to design fully fledged applications without really designing the whole thing. I don’t know about the rest of the programming community, but this seems to me like using FrontPage to build a website… not only is it stupid but it’s a huge waste of time and ends up with a result that either is supremely terrible or without originality.

Think of the sites you visit. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Gmail, etc… most of the most used and most famous applications / sites are created from scratch, without using any sort of quadruple-bypass layer of abstraction. Google isn’t “Powered by Django” and Yahoo isn’t “Designed in Flex”… and they never will be.

Don’t Waste Life
Maybe those people writing “web OSes” should consider this…

If you’re thinking of creating something, stop. Think about it. Do you have the ability? If you do, that’s great. But don’t be a stupid waste of human life and build the web application equivalent of a C#.NET program.

Not only does it waste electricity, slow everything down, and just suck in general… but it makes the rest of us look bad too.