Airlines, like most other businesses, need to operate in such a way that their customers do not mind paying a profitable rate to obtain the company's product or service. Given all the unpleasantness of airports (thanks to security hysteria and airline routes & scheduling that turn a short trip into an all-day ordeal), airlines really should be thinking about making planes a more pleasant place to be.

Personally, I love the flight from point A to point B. I might feel differently if it was a longer flight, but for the few hours I am aloft, I really enjoy it. Yet, I would gladly drive across the nation if it meant I could avoid airports.

I flew from California to Newark, New Jersey last year. It was quite an experience, because I found myself waiting for a few hours at Dallas-Fort Worth airport. The year before that, flying to Albany, New York, I spent a few hours at Atlanta airport. A couple of weeks ago, I spent hours at Minneapolis airport. These may all be pleasant cities, but I really do not desire to go through their airports any more.

And that, to me, suggests a way out for the airlines. You see, the airlines' business model is based upon charging very high prices to those who are most desperate to buy your product, while discounting to attract those who are price-sensitive. Because business fliers are usually absolutely desperate, they pay the highest rates, moderated by frequent flier miles and bulk discount plans. Because many business fliers' flights are paid by their companies, they take the lowest priced from point A to point B, even if that means going through points C and D before arriving.

One thing the airlines might want to look at is going back to direct flights to most destinations, coupled with fixed-price tickets that cover the costs and bring a decent profit. I think this would be the best way to restore the profitability of airlines while giving a more pleasing experience to their customers. One thing is sure: the current model of treating paying customers like cattle to be herded and prodded is failing under the strain of our current economy.

The founder of The Weather Channel recently wrote a guest article on “Watts Up With That?“, a blog that debunks much pro-AGW doctrine.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.

I read Watts Up from time to time. What I’m seeing there interests me. You see, with my main job, I go to places that are devasted by fires, floods, and earthquakes. Let me tell you, this year looks to be a busy year for me. And I’m seeing, thanks to Watts Up, that it may all be caused by the sun. Hundreds of years ago, there was a period of time we call the “little ice age” because it was so bitterly cold. It appears that the pattern of sunspots observed then resembles the pattern observed today.

The article attempts to refute much of what former Vice President Al Gore is telling us (that man’s activities are causing the earth’s temperatures to rise, and that one of the possible consequences of our activities is the extinction of our species). I’m not a weather or climate expert, so I have to rely upon what those who are experts tell me.

I saw on the news that skiing is still happening in Colorado in the middle of June. Heavy thunderstorms and rainstorms have stayed over much of the Midwest, producing tornadoes, flooding, and lots of damage. If sunspot-caused global cooling is now in session, this is what lies ahead for us over the next few years. The cool year we are experiencing in 2008 could be the blueprint for the next few years.

What can you do? There are some things you can do, and should. First of all, check to see whether you are living in a low-lying area that is prone to flooding. Are you in a floodplain? Perhaps in an area that is protected by dams and levees? If the answer is ‘yes’, you need to start working toward relocating. Remember, one wise move can save the lives of yourself and your family.

There are other things you can do. Contact your state’s disaster preparedness / response  / recovery agency for information on what you can do to prepare for an event.

The important thing is that you take the time to become acquainted with the possible kinds of disaster, from fire, to earthquake, to flood, to windstorm (e.g., tornado or hurricane), to societal breakdown, to a meteorite hitting and destroying your home. Then, develop a realistic plan for dealing with each situation, including possible actions you can take beforehand to lessen the impact of the situation. Finally, act on the plan, preparing for disaster–it will come eventually, so your best bet is to be ready.

Another important thing to look into is insurance. If your home or business burned down, you’d be in a world of hurt. But with insurance, you at least have a fighting chance at getting back to where you were. Be sure to ask about the national flood insurance program and any corresponding programs for earthquakes or other big events.

According to the report, the DOE expects coastal states to harness 50,000 megawatts of offshore wind in shallow water depths of less than 100 feet. The report notes for some coastal states (like Massachusetts) shallow water offshore wind can provide 100 percent of the electricity supply.

The DOE further states that increasing the use of wind power to supply 20 percent of the nation’s electricity would reduce carbon dioxide emissions (that contribute to climate change) from the electricity generation sector by 25 percent while creating up to a half million new American jobs.

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I have been harping on the need to act for some time. Being a California resident, I have seen how our state and local leaders are harming our economy by waiting until they are forced to start moving us toward energy independence.

I think of the proposal to build a wind farm in the hills Northeast of Apple Valley. The Town council spoke up against it, fearing that the appearance would keep people from buying homes in the part of the Town nearest that area. We’re talking about a place that has occasionally suffered blackouts because of California’s lack of power capacity. Even the slightest bit of common sense would say that having local generation capacity is a good thing in times of scarcity.

Maybe there is a silver lining in the fuel price increases. If the price increases force our governments and our society (including individuals and families) to seek out alternatives to fossil fuels, then that part, at least, is good.

What we have been doing is unsustainable. Our homes are large, with large expanses of glass, and poorly insulated. We make up for this by turning up the furnace or air conditioner. We live in places that are distant from where we earn our livings, so we spend a lot of time getting to work and back home. Because we are so far from our workplaces, there aren’t many people following exactly the same routes, so we almost have to use private vehicles to commute–sure, we could take the bus or the train, but we’d add an hour or more to our commute time.

We need to change, but not just as individuals. We need change society-wide. We need to have our leaders behind these changes, whether it means public financing or changing regulations and zoning to make sustainable living allowable and in fact preferred. That our state and local governments have ignored this for the past thirty years is tragic. If they continue their present policies, there will be a very painful time when the lights go out and the tanks run dry. At that time, we will all suffer unbearable anguish, although wealthier and better-connected individuals might escape the effects longer or suffer less than their neighbors do.

It’s Time To Change

Sam has found an important editorial in support of these ideas. I am not an East coast resident, and have no opinion as to the desirability of the “Cape Wind” project. However, we can either do something, even if it isn’t a perfect solution, or we can sit on our hindquarters until the lights go out and we are trying to survive a breakdown of society. At the very least, we’ll learn more as we proceed, including whether existing technology is sufficient or we need to develop new technology.

Technorati Tags: alternative energy, economic development

1. Invest in building small, locally-owned businesses in the community, particularly those whose product or service is sold to buyers outside of the area. They bring funds into the local economy, and are intimately tied to the local area by the residency of their owners. N3TM0uSe

   We should not be afraid to set goals for hiring of local employees, including both number and compensation levels of those employees. Nor should we be afraid to work out a deal to help with job-skills training for the employees that get hired. Remember that during the heyday of aerospace in Southern California, it was said that each job supported five other jobs in the economy. We may not reach that level, but even 1.5 other local jobs is preferable to giving funding to big box retailers paying minimum wage and costing more jobs than they bring.

2. Find an area of town with reasonable land costs and build whole communities of “starter homes”. The idea is that people earning the local median income should easily be able to afford these homes. This helps with stabilizing the economy (homeowners have a reason to participate in making things better, where renters do not) and with helping your local construction, real estate, and financial industries to recover from the recession.

   It does not have to be solely funded by taxpayers. A cooperative project with a group like Habitat for Humanity can have a wonderful effect on the area. Habitat often has the buyer help with the construction, which gives them some skills and experience they’ll need during the maintenance phase, and which may even open the door to a new career in construction.

   In areas where it is possible, these homes should be heavily-insulated (protects occupants from temperature extremes, reduces utility costs) and maybe even utilize solar and wind generators to augment the power grid. Also, make housing areas as close to business areas as possible. Ideally, employees will be able to walk to work (this means that businesses have to follow strict environmental and safety standards, including regular inspections by regulating agencies).

What we know is this: Washington is too “bought and paid for” by large corporations that have too much at stake to truly be concerned about your little community. Instead, your community needs to take the lead and break its dependency upon outside funding, imported goods, and the now-nonexistent loyalty of corporate America. Let me say it again: most of what your community needs will not come from the feds.

We already know from past experience that giving subsidies to large companies to come into your town does not work. Your taxpayers pay up front, and before the company’s contribution matches the benefit it received, it closes up shop and moves to the next town. The large discount retailer nicknamed “Big Blue” is well-known for this strategy, leaving empty stores in town after town. It is time to return to something that works: local community investment in local businesses is a key part of a strategy for preserving your community’s economic future.

Suddenly, a flurry of OOXML-ODF related news « CyberTech Rambler N3TM0uSe

Fourth. We may in fact, never see a full implementation of ISO OOXML. Microsoft already said that it will support ODF 1.1, not ISO ODF (version 1.0). That is a correct technical decision, since ODF 1.1 is the norm today. Superimpose this tread of thinking on to OOXML and what do you get? Microsoft not implementing ISO OOXML, but a later, “enhanced” version which they dictate the development of. To critics who says this will not happen, let me remind you that ISO OOXML support is still an raincheck. We know that the earliest posible date is in two years time, i.e. 2010. Do you really believe that Microsoft Office format will stay stagnant at ISO OOXML for the two years??? I put my money on Microsoft Office in 2010 saving in the “updated” OOXML format, with the ability to save to ISO OOXML. When that comes true, every other office suite will still be in the same situation as they are today: forever playing catch up.

Lastly, to those who says OOXML is needed urgently, therefore we should sacrifice quality for speed, you just had egg on your face. The urgency is so strong that we can wait till 2010. Yeah!

CyberTech Rambler always has some interesting insights on the OOXML / Ecma 376 / ISO 29500 situation. I recommend reading his blog along with mine, Rob Weir’s, Andy Updegrove’s, and Pamela Jones’s. Others to read include Arnaud Le Hors and Bob Sutor.

For pro-OOXML propaganda, I recommend Brian Jones, Doug Mahugh, and Jason Matusow. Just recognize that they are constrained by their employer and so cannot speak their true minds. For example, Jason often states that he’s always against technology mandates, but if the mandate was that software used had to faithfully interpret and preserve compatibility with files used by an agency’s existing (Microsoft) software, I sincerely doubt that he’d oppose that. Rick Jelliffe’s posts on XML.com are another excellent read, once you understand that he is still sore about being branded as a wiki-editing prostitute by some overzealous OOXML opponents.

When ODF was being created at OASIS, Microsoft chose to let things go without their input. The knew that it was meant as a vendor-neutral open format that could be easily implemented by office applications suites. So why did they wait? Because their secret weapon has always been their file formats. Truthfully, nearly all of the important functionality in an office suite was already present in 1997. Very little has been added since then, other than bundling some other applications with the suite. The reason that MS Office has been used so widely is because only their product fully-understood their file formats. If you use Word and I use WordPerfect, there will always be little variations in the way the products render documents using Word’s file format. They saw ODF as just another attempt to dethrone them. If the product that runs on 90% of computers does not support the format, it will just die, they must have reasoned. But it did not turn out that way.

It turned out that the timing was right for ODF. Governments and end-users were tiring of having a single vendor for their software. They wanted vendor neutrality in their file formats and in their network protocols. They also wanted open standards, so they did not have to fear the wrath of patent-holders’ legal departments for accessing their own data. The wanted choice, not of file formats, but of vendors and products that use those formats. This is what ODF offers. OpenDocument Format (ODF, ISO 26300) is designed primarily for use by multiple vendors (althoug some claim that OpenOffice.org specific markup still exists within the format). ODF is mostly compatible with existing standards, so there is already a lot of experience with implementing parts of the standard. ODF has multiple implementations, including some that are completely independent. Once ODF went through the ISO-ification process, Microsoft suddenly realized that there are some areas (such as Europe) where laws may require governments to prefer ISO standards.

As a result, Microsoft sent their then-proprietary XML formats (dubbed Office Open XML [OOXML, sometimes called OpenXML]) through Ecma for standardization, with a target of getting the ISO seal of approval. In a contentious process that was far too short for the kind of detailed examination and changing that was needed, ISO recently approved OOXML as a standard, pending the disposition of a recent challenge. They have opened up considerably, although there are still some challenges for outside implementers of the formats.

The goal of the MS 2007 formats, as well as OOXML to some degree, is to prevent you and your business from having a choice of applications to use in creating, modifying, and reading your data. If you are locked-in by file format incompatibilities, you will not normally be willing to endure the pain of conversion to a competing product, even if that product fits your needs better. This also enables MSFT to charge higher prices, which leads to higher profits, which enables them to continue to subsidize their money-losing MSN / Live and XBox / Zune businesses. Their eventual goal, in my estimation, is to have an intravenous line into your wallet. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that they want to have you so dependent on Microsoft that you buy Microsoft-branded underwear because no one else makes undergarments compatible with the software that operates your chair.

The important thing for you to know is this: Microsoft’s Office 2007 does not support ISO standardized OOXML, and will not until at least 2010. Your .docx / .xlsx / .pptx documents are now in a doomed format that may shortly be unreadable by most software. Likewise for the corresponding macro-containing formats. If you care about continued access to your data, do not save in MS 2007 formats. Use the older .doc / .xls / .ppt formats, or even better, use ODF formats (.odt / .ods / .odp). If necessary, install the Sun plug-in (NOT the CleverAge plug-in) to enable support for ODF in your Microsoft Office software. (Unfortunately, there is not a Mac version of Sun’s plug-in yet.)

For your SLOB (small, locally-owned business), OMB (owner-managed business), or FOB (family-owned business), you might be better off holding onto what you have for a while and whenever you have to upgrade or replace a computer, going with Sun’s commercially-licensed StarOffice product (or the related open source licensed OpenOffice.org product). If you really prefer MS Office 2007, wait until SP2 is released next year, so you will have some level of ODF support built-in (and also PDF saving, the most requested feature in my workplace). Or you may want to check out IBM Lotus Symphony, which has a similar interface (like MS Office 2007, I can never find the functions I want).