May 26, 2004
An interesting article by Virginia Postrel is in the New York Times (registration required, use your favorite general login 
) talking about the returns on investment for highway spending. Basically, we're at a point where highway spending - encompassing design, construction, maintenance, etc. - doesn't really pay off in terms of reducing congestion, lowering inventory, and increasing productivity the way it used to. Unfortunately, her analysis just kind of drops this idea out there, and wanders off. So I wondered what some of the reasons for the drop in returns were.
Some of them are mentioned in the article. For one, we've largely transformed from a roadway network expansion to a roadway link expansion, meaning we've gone from building new roads to widening existing roads, providing more capacity for existing travel pathways. I'd add that we've already built the roads that are going to help the most, the ones that people really want. Those folks in the planning departments at State Highway Administrations aren't just drawing random lines on the map. They do look at where the most people want to go, and correspondingly those roads get built first. So when we've exhausted the easy, high-demand roadways, we're left with less attractive roadway projects, from a return standpoint. I don't think this is quite the same as the 'increased funding' argument given in the article, which says that as total amount goes up, efficiency drops.
I think another reason that the ROI's are going down are additional regulations that have been added to roadway construction. Some, like Stormwater Management, used to be very small or non-existant parts of roadway costs. Now SWM is up to 25% of construction costs, and 25-30% of design costs. Since this does not impact the congestion of the roadway, it doesn't really get counted in the productivity that uses those factors. Since it also is not really an improvement on the natural condition, that's not really a return. It's only a return compared with older, non-treated roads. Add other things like wetland and forest mitigation, and you can see quite a reduction in 'productive' spending.
But another question we should ask is 'what can be done instead?' Would it be better to pay companies to move their locations? Or to swap houses? Do we really have any alternatives? If we want to move people from one far off place to another, roads are really going to be the only way to do it. Rail could be used in certain cases, with some additional spending to try to make the country more rail compatible, but that's only part of the solution. Perhaps we should try to convince people to live closer to where they work (like I do). Do we want to PAY them to do so? Maybe. Could that improve our returns? Maybe. But I don't think that the lowering of returns means that roads shouldn't be built.
By the way, Virginia Postrel's site (with excellent writing) can be found at Dynamist.com.
) talking about the returns on investment for highway spending. Basically, we're at a point where highway spending - encompassing design, construction, maintenance, etc. - doesn't really pay off in terms of reducing congestion, lowering inventory, and increasing productivity the way it used to. Unfortunately, her analysis just kind of drops this idea out there, and wanders off. So I wondered what some of the reasons for the drop in returns were.Some of them are mentioned in the article. For one, we've largely transformed from a roadway network expansion to a roadway link expansion, meaning we've gone from building new roads to widening existing roads, providing more capacity for existing travel pathways. I'd add that we've already built the roads that are going to help the most, the ones that people really want. Those folks in the planning departments at State Highway Administrations aren't just drawing random lines on the map. They do look at where the most people want to go, and correspondingly those roads get built first. So when we've exhausted the easy, high-demand roadways, we're left with less attractive roadway projects, from a return standpoint. I don't think this is quite the same as the 'increased funding' argument given in the article, which says that as total amount goes up, efficiency drops.
I think another reason that the ROI's are going down are additional regulations that have been added to roadway construction. Some, like Stormwater Management, used to be very small or non-existant parts of roadway costs. Now SWM is up to 25% of construction costs, and 25-30% of design costs. Since this does not impact the congestion of the roadway, it doesn't really get counted in the productivity that uses those factors. Since it also is not really an improvement on the natural condition, that's not really a return. It's only a return compared with older, non-treated roads. Add other things like wetland and forest mitigation, and you can see quite a reduction in 'productive' spending.
But another question we should ask is 'what can be done instead?' Would it be better to pay companies to move their locations? Or to swap houses? Do we really have any alternatives? If we want to move people from one far off place to another, roads are really going to be the only way to do it. Rail could be used in certain cases, with some additional spending to try to make the country more rail compatible, but that's only part of the solution. Perhaps we should try to convince people to live closer to where they work (like I do). Do we want to PAY them to do so? Maybe. Could that improve our returns? Maybe. But I don't think that the lowering of returns means that roads shouldn't be built.
By the way, Virginia Postrel's site (with excellent writing) can be found at Dynamist.com.
May 21, 2004
3 weeks ago, a man died when he was ejected from a roller coaster at Six Flags New England. Apparently the man, a 55 year old, 5-foot 2-inch man with Cerebral Palsy fell out of the ride. The resulting cause is listed as he was improperly restrained. Now, from what I've seen, it's 'improperly restrained' just because he fell out. According to the accident reports, the seatbelt was still fastened when the train pulled back in the station. Now, this guy was most certainly 'too large for the ride'. As it happens, I've gotten a picture of the ride in question:
Used with permission (click for a very very large version)
Looking at that picture, you can clearly see the restraint system on this coaster. The seat has bars on the side that extend very far forward, and the hydraulic T-bar, which is supposed to be the main restraint, will exert quite a bit of force on even large people (as shown by the guy in the fourth row). What I'd hypothesize happened was that this guy was all gut, which pushed the t-bar far out, and then he was only relying on the seatbelt, which I'll admit isn't adequate for someone who can't hold themselves in. So, you write this off to an accident, have the people look for people who don't have the t-bar up over their knees, and go back to work, right?
Well, unfortunately no. In response to this accident, Cedar Point in Ohio has instituted a new policy that they intend to limit riders on their hyper-mega-coaster, Millenium Force. Basically, their guidelines are written at any male over 6'2" OR over 225 pounds, or any female over 6'0" OR 200 pounds. Plus, they've 'remounted' the seatbelts, basically shortening them. If it's a 'snug' fit, as determined by the ride operators, you're out. Even if the t-bar would totally trap your legs (like it does with me), preventing you from getting out. At 6'2" and 255 pounds, I guess I'm out, even though I haven't EVER had a problem in a roller coaster. Plus, what is the justification for different sizes for women and men? Is body density that different? Somehow, I don't think so.
Is it so important that we keep people who can make decisions for themselves out of a ride? Is it totally unacceptable that a single person, a severe outlier in size and shape, dies on an admittedly dangerous ride? As Patrick Crozier says about roadways (and applies here) safety isn't the only consideration. Every year people die on roller coasters. Sometimes it's due to mechanical failure, like at Disneyland's Big Thunder Mountain Railroad last year (the train derailed and crushed a rider). Sometimes it's due to someone actively contributing, by worming out of the belts and restraints(I believe a case like this happened at Six Flags America a couple years ago). Accidents and negligence happen. But does a significant portion of the population have to be punished for it? I guess the lawyers think so.
Used with permission (click for a very very large version)
Looking at that picture, you can clearly see the restraint system on this coaster. The seat has bars on the side that extend very far forward, and the hydraulic T-bar, which is supposed to be the main restraint, will exert quite a bit of force on even large people (as shown by the guy in the fourth row). What I'd hypothesize happened was that this guy was all gut, which pushed the t-bar far out, and then he was only relying on the seatbelt, which I'll admit isn't adequate for someone who can't hold themselves in. So, you write this off to an accident, have the people look for people who don't have the t-bar up over their knees, and go back to work, right?
Well, unfortunately no. In response to this accident, Cedar Point in Ohio has instituted a new policy that they intend to limit riders on their hyper-mega-coaster, Millenium Force. Basically, their guidelines are written at any male over 6'2" OR over 225 pounds, or any female over 6'0" OR 200 pounds. Plus, they've 'remounted' the seatbelts, basically shortening them. If it's a 'snug' fit, as determined by the ride operators, you're out. Even if the t-bar would totally trap your legs (like it does with me), preventing you from getting out. At 6'2" and 255 pounds, I guess I'm out, even though I haven't EVER had a problem in a roller coaster. Plus, what is the justification for different sizes for women and men? Is body density that different? Somehow, I don't think so.
Is it so important that we keep people who can make decisions for themselves out of a ride? Is it totally unacceptable that a single person, a severe outlier in size and shape, dies on an admittedly dangerous ride? As Patrick Crozier says about roadways (and applies here) safety isn't the only consideration. Every year people die on roller coasters. Sometimes it's due to mechanical failure, like at Disneyland's Big Thunder Mountain Railroad last year (the train derailed and crushed a rider). Sometimes it's due to someone actively contributing, by worming out of the belts and restraints(I believe a case like this happened at Six Flags America a couple years ago). Accidents and negligence happen. But does a significant portion of the population have to be punished for it? I guess the lawyers think so.
May 8, 2004
In a comment for the previous post, Jay Jardine says "I think once people get used to it, they'll come around and realize how wasteful the gas tax model is." I think this is an interesting idea. I'm not exactly sure what aspects of it he means, but I can certainly see parts where it is inefficient. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with the gas tax, with a few caveats. One is that ALL gas tax funds should go to roadway construction and maintenance. Another is that no other generally collected funds should be used for roadway construction and maintenance. This is in keeping with my 'user fee' dream of government funding (yeah, yeah, I know...). One thing that's difficult to determine is how much of the gas tax that's collected is used by roadway purposes, how much is for other transportation purposes (rail, water, air), and how much is raided for general fund purposes. Also, how much is contributed to transportation projects from other sources? Maybe someday I'll look more into that.
But as far as collecting fees for roadway work, we've got a couple of options, that are pretty much currently used. Roadway tolls and pump taxes. Now, I'm not one who thinks all roads should be privatized, because I think this would only result in a LOT fewer roads. I also don't think Eminent Domain is particularly abused for roadway projects. So we're talking about the state funding roadway construction, and owning the majority of them, thereby being responsible for maintenance. So they have to collect the funds. And while tolls are very efficient at roadway pricing, I think a lot of roadways would have to be priced so low that collecting tolls would be difficult. I am also a staunch opponent of new technologies like GPS tolling. I really loathe the idea of tracking where EVERYONE goes, just so you can collect tolls on part of it. That leave me with tolls collected on roads. To get enough coverage, you have to deploy toll collection everywhere, using electronic passes (another privacy issue like the GPS comes in here), which is going to be expensive also. Or you limit toll collection to those high volume roadways. But this doesn't exact a 'fair' tax from all drivers, since you're only collecting from those who use those specific roadways. That's why I still think a pump tax is warranted, not because everyone pays a 'fair share', but because it's a good proxy for general roadway use. Then you can use the tolls on the highly traveled parts as congestion pricing to determine more accurate values of the roadways.
But as far as collecting fees for roadway work, we've got a couple of options, that are pretty much currently used. Roadway tolls and pump taxes. Now, I'm not one who thinks all roads should be privatized, because I think this would only result in a LOT fewer roads. I also don't think Eminent Domain is particularly abused for roadway projects. So we're talking about the state funding roadway construction, and owning the majority of them, thereby being responsible for maintenance. So they have to collect the funds. And while tolls are very efficient at roadway pricing, I think a lot of roadways would have to be priced so low that collecting tolls would be difficult. I am also a staunch opponent of new technologies like GPS tolling. I really loathe the idea of tracking where EVERYONE goes, just so you can collect tolls on part of it. That leave me with tolls collected on roads. To get enough coverage, you have to deploy toll collection everywhere, using electronic passes (another privacy issue like the GPS comes in here), which is going to be expensive also. Or you limit toll collection to those high volume roadways. But this doesn't exact a 'fair' tax from all drivers, since you're only collecting from those who use those specific roadways. That's why I still think a pump tax is warranted, not because everyone pays a 'fair share', but because it's a good proxy for general roadway use. Then you can use the tolls on the highly traveled parts as congestion pricing to determine more accurate values of the roadways.
May 4, 2004
Heard on the radio today that the Governor, Robert Ehrlich, and the Transportation Secretary, Robert Flanagan, have proposed establishing toll lanes with congestion pricing on MD interstates. All in all, an interesting idea, given that they're using a mix between taking lanes and building lanes for it, and planning to sell bonds to finance construction, to be paid back with the toll revenue. Previous concepts for providing toll lanes (usually along with High-Occupancy provisions, making them "HOT" lanes) have been roundly criticised, as mentioned in the article, as 'Lexus Lanes' and 'not fair enough'. I think this idea of adding AND taking pavement for the toll lanes is probably a good idea, and people hopefully will realize the necessity of tolls for providing roadway funding. I think their estimate of $620 million is REALLY fanciful, and would put the actual cost at about $1.5 billion, but the idea of pricing roadways is an idea that really needs to be done.
Maybe in the future I'll be able to delve into the details of such systems. I'd really like to see how they do the pricing, how they notify people what the current price is, do they change the price on you after you're in, etc. Those are really interesting things to me.
Maybe in the future I'll be able to delve into the details of such systems. I'd really like to see how they do the pricing, how they notify people what the current price is, do they change the price on you after you're in, etc. Those are really interesting things to me.
May 1, 2004
In interesting auto news, we get the Covini Six-Wheeled Sportscar. A very low volume car, it's using the same ideas as the Tyrrel P34, using 2 smaller wheels in the front on each side to gain some performance advantages. It's a very interesting idea, but I don't think it has enough advantage for most driving to become anything close to a frequently used tech.
April 25, 2004
Is Whine Pablo Montoya!
I don't know how many of you watch or follow Formula One, but does anyone have an idea why Juan Montoya is such a whiner? Not to mention hypocritical. How many times have we seen him, just this year, push people into the weeds, or into the pit wall, or cut them off in the corner (although that move is more the forte of his teammate, Ralf Schumacher)? So what happens today? Since everyone I know has already watched their taped version of the race, I'm gonna say it in the next paragraph. Don't blame me if you haven't seen it yet.
The scene is the San Marino Grand Prix. Jenson Button on the pole, Michael Schumacher second, JPM third, Barrichello fourth, and Ralf Schumacher fifth on the grid. At the start, Button gets a good start, MS and JPM about the same, RS a better start. First move by JPM? Turn a bit left to push RS over into the grass if he wants to get by. As we go through the first 3 turns, JPM is hounding MS, trying to pass him, darting in and out. We come to Tosa, and JPM tries to go around the outside of MS. He says MS just hit him in the side, and then ran him out to the grass. We can't see any hits in the side (Being mean and judgmental, I'll say that I'd bet that JPM turned in too tight and got hit), but we do see JPM about 1/2-way or further back along MS's car, and being run out into the grass runoff area coming out of Tosa. At this point, I'm cheering, since I'm a MS and Ferrari fan.
And the next move by JPM? Run Ralf Schumacher, his teammate, halfway into the grass!!!
JPM then has the gall to say how crummy MS is for doing that, and spends his press conference time grumbling about it. But just ask him about pushing Ralf over. Go ahead, ask:
Ahh, so it's terrible to protect against a guy going around you on the outside who is half behind you, but it's ok to run your teammate off into the grass on the straight right after that!
Unbelievable.
As someone else mentioned, maybe JPM is seeing the McLarens blow up, burn out, and otherwise suck, and is feeling a bit of buyer's remorse for that contract for next year.
I don't know how many of you watch or follow Formula One, but does anyone have an idea why Juan Montoya is such a whiner? Not to mention hypocritical. How many times have we seen him, just this year, push people into the weeds, or into the pit wall, or cut them off in the corner (although that move is more the forte of his teammate, Ralf Schumacher)? So what happens today? Since everyone I know has already watched their taped version of the race, I'm gonna say it in the next paragraph. Don't blame me if you haven't seen it yet.
The scene is the San Marino Grand Prix. Jenson Button on the pole, Michael Schumacher second, JPM third, Barrichello fourth, and Ralf Schumacher fifth on the grid. At the start, Button gets a good start, MS and JPM about the same, RS a better start. First move by JPM? Turn a bit left to push RS over into the grass if he wants to get by. As we go through the first 3 turns, JPM is hounding MS, trying to pass him, darting in and out. We come to Tosa, and JPM tries to go around the outside of MS. He says MS just hit him in the side, and then ran him out to the grass. We can't see any hits in the side (Being mean and judgmental, I'll say that I'd bet that JPM turned in too tight and got hit), but we do see JPM about 1/2-way or further back along MS's car, and being run out into the grass runoff area coming out of Tosa. At this point, I'm cheering, since I'm a MS and Ferrari fan.
And the next move by JPM? Run Ralf Schumacher, his teammate, halfway into the grass!!!JPM then has the gall to say how crummy MS is for doing that, and spends his press conference time grumbling about it. But just ask him about pushing Ralf over. Go ahead, ask:
Q: (Andrea Cremoensi – La Gazzetta dello Sport): Juan Pablo, have you seen Ralf (laughter)?
JPM: I did close the door you know. I don’t have anything against what I did, but it was because of the first incident. I wasn’t going to lose 10 positions. I don’t have a problem with that, it is fine by me.
Ahh, so it's terrible to protect against a guy going around you on the outside who is half behind you, but it's ok to run your teammate off into the grass on the straight right after that!
Unbelievable.
As someone else mentioned, maybe JPM is seeing the McLarens blow up, burn out, and otherwise suck, and is feeling a bit of buyer's remorse for that contract for next year.
April 21, 2004
On a report on NPR's All Things Considered today, Walter Cronkite waxed rhapsodic about Nikita Kruschev. Overall it's not bad, although his admiration for Kruschev sticks out like a red light (at least to me). But at the end of the report, he states that Kruschev coined a phrase: "The spirit of Camp David" and says it's something that's missing with America and her enemies today.
This made me cringe a bit. Well, actually, listening to ATC makes me cringe a bit, but it's better than the jingoistic rantings of Sean Hannity on at the same time. But 'the spirit of Camp David' just kinda set me on edge. It still does. First, let's look at the 'enemies' of America. A loose list might include North Korea, Iraq, al-Qaeda (and other terrorist groups), and then a list that tails off of Iran, the PLO, Hamas, etc... Let's look at the history of these groups with 'treaties'. North Korea signed a treaty with America to provide them with lots of stuff, in exchange for shutting down nuclear weapons programs. Most people realize now that they totally ignored it. When America called them on it, they turned into raving lunatics. Now they say they want to talk treaties, but I have my opinion of what kind of 'treaty' they want. And it wouldn't really encompass the 'spirit of Camp David'. More like the spirit of the Munich Conference of 1938 (hint: "Peace in our time!"). Next would be Iraq, who given multiple chances and UN resolutions, ignored them all. I don't think it was the US that was ignoring the 'spirit of Camp David' with all those resolutions and attempts at diplomacy.
The PLO, in the person of Yassir Arafat, even WENT to Camp David to negotiate with the US and Israel. Most people, including Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, put the failure of those talks on the shoulders of Arafat. Indeed, as I heard it described then, he had no intention of compromising with Israel. He simply deduced how far the US and Israel would go, and immediately started there as his opening position. He would not move back, and the others could not move back, leading to a stalemate. Where was the 'spirit of Camp David'? Squashed under Arafat's heel, I'd say.
The other groups aren't even predisposed to even talk to the US. Unlike Kruschev, who at least seemed to believe that Socialism would be seen as the natural order of things by future generations (maybe he was right, at least through college years), the enemies of the US are not interested in eventually converting the US, or waiting out the US. I believe they actively want to destroy the people of the US. I would love to see an end to hostilities with all US forces. I don't know if I'd want more Cold War-style standoffs (Personally, I had plans, if I knew there was an inbound nuke missle strike, to drive towards DC and leave a shadow somewhere. Ahh, youth. I don't want anyone to have to have contingency plans like that). The bottom line is that 'the spirit of Camp David' might be missing, but it's not the fault of the Americans, despite the scornful tone of Walter Cronkite.
This made me cringe a bit. Well, actually, listening to ATC makes me cringe a bit, but it's better than the jingoistic rantings of Sean Hannity on at the same time. But 'the spirit of Camp David' just kinda set me on edge. It still does. First, let's look at the 'enemies' of America. A loose list might include North Korea, Iraq, al-Qaeda (and other terrorist groups), and then a list that tails off of Iran, the PLO, Hamas, etc... Let's look at the history of these groups with 'treaties'. North Korea signed a treaty with America to provide them with lots of stuff, in exchange for shutting down nuclear weapons programs. Most people realize now that they totally ignored it. When America called them on it, they turned into raving lunatics. Now they say they want to talk treaties, but I have my opinion of what kind of 'treaty' they want. And it wouldn't really encompass the 'spirit of Camp David'. More like the spirit of the Munich Conference of 1938 (hint: "Peace in our time!"). Next would be Iraq, who given multiple chances and UN resolutions, ignored them all. I don't think it was the US that was ignoring the 'spirit of Camp David' with all those resolutions and attempts at diplomacy.
The PLO, in the person of Yassir Arafat, even WENT to Camp David to negotiate with the US and Israel. Most people, including Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak, put the failure of those talks on the shoulders of Arafat. Indeed, as I heard it described then, he had no intention of compromising with Israel. He simply deduced how far the US and Israel would go, and immediately started there as his opening position. He would not move back, and the others could not move back, leading to a stalemate. Where was the 'spirit of Camp David'? Squashed under Arafat's heel, I'd say.
The other groups aren't even predisposed to even talk to the US. Unlike Kruschev, who at least seemed to believe that Socialism would be seen as the natural order of things by future generations (maybe he was right, at least through college years), the enemies of the US are not interested in eventually converting the US, or waiting out the US. I believe they actively want to destroy the people of the US. I would love to see an end to hostilities with all US forces. I don't know if I'd want more Cold War-style standoffs (Personally, I had plans, if I knew there was an inbound nuke missle strike, to drive towards DC and leave a shadow somewhere. Ahh, youth. I don't want anyone to have to have contingency plans like that). The bottom line is that 'the spirit of Camp David' might be missing, but it's not the fault of the Americans, despite the scornful tone of Walter Cronkite.
April 7, 2004
For the Stupid Story of the Day, we go out to Pleasanton, California. Apparently people there are so exercised about people speeding on a 40 MPH road, they've decided to deputize a traffic signal to harass people who go over the speed limit. If you go too fast through a speed trap, it will turn the light yellow and then red 'quickly'. All this just to punish people who are speeding. Well, more like to try to discourage people from driving through their community.
I don't know the roads in question here, but the engineering of this thing just seems so wrong. I don't know what their definition of 'quickly' is, but with a distance of 350 feet you're talking a maximum of 6 seconds between passing the speed trap and being in the intersection. For someone going the speed limit. People going faster will take less time to get there. And the people going faster are the people who are going to just go through the signal. They're going to allow cross street traffic to go, if present, and if there isn't anyone waiting, well, we'll just make it red for 10 seconds. To punish people.
Apparently the people there are already nuts. They go borrow radar guns and issue warning letters on their own. But apparently they haven't heard of the idea of normal traffic calming. There are a lot of things you can do to slow people down. But using this light is a total kludge. Looking at the things they have to do to make it 'work', you wonder if it's worth it. First, they have to make it so that the other direction doesn't get stopped with the one direction, although when there's traffic waiting do they get stopped anyway? And what's the time between red cycles for speeders? And then you have to have 4-way greens for pedestrians so they don't get confused? And you trap someone who IS going the speed limit and gets passed by a speeder. Plus you're going to piss off people. All the time.
Like I said earlier, I don't know the layout of this intersection. Looking at this map, it looks like a typical connector road between two towns. I can see why commuters would use it. I don't know what the solution would be. But one thing that is important to the way traffic works is that people know what to expect. This doesn't operate like other lights, and I see the potential problems as much worse than any benefit that will be gained.
I don't know the roads in question here, but the engineering of this thing just seems so wrong. I don't know what their definition of 'quickly' is, but with a distance of 350 feet you're talking a maximum of 6 seconds between passing the speed trap and being in the intersection. For someone going the speed limit. People going faster will take less time to get there. And the people going faster are the people who are going to just go through the signal. They're going to allow cross street traffic to go, if present, and if there isn't anyone waiting, well, we'll just make it red for 10 seconds. To punish people.
Apparently the people there are already nuts. They go borrow radar guns and issue warning letters on their own. But apparently they haven't heard of the idea of normal traffic calming. There are a lot of things you can do to slow people down. But using this light is a total kludge. Looking at the things they have to do to make it 'work', you wonder if it's worth it. First, they have to make it so that the other direction doesn't get stopped with the one direction, although when there's traffic waiting do they get stopped anyway? And what's the time between red cycles for speeders? And then you have to have 4-way greens for pedestrians so they don't get confused? And you trap someone who IS going the speed limit and gets passed by a speeder. Plus you're going to piss off people. All the time.
Like I said earlier, I don't know the layout of this intersection. Looking at this map, it looks like a typical connector road between two towns. I can see why commuters would use it. I don't know what the solution would be. But one thing that is important to the way traffic works is that people know what to expect. This doesn't operate like other lights, and I see the potential problems as much worse than any benefit that will be gained.
April 1, 2004
Anonymous Blogging is an issue that comes up now and then. Usually cause someone gets ripped up by an anonymous blogger, decides they didn't like being criticized, and calls the anonymous writer a 'coward', 'chicken', or say they're only tough because they're hiding behind a nom de cyber. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it's not. People can be jerks no matter what.
Now, as is obvious, I run this blog under a pseudonym. I do this because I like to write about things related to my professional field. But I also keep most of my work out of this blog. I don't talk about what company I work for, I don't talk about what work my company does or does not have, I don't talk about people I work with at other agencies, I try not to even talk about the policies of those agencies. I do this because I don't want my company to have to be aware of this blog. I don't want to be shut down, although my recent posting habits might make you think otherwise. In short, I don't really want casual lookers at this blog to be able to connect me personally or professionaly with this place where I write. Anyone who knows anything about the internet can find out way more information about me than I am comfortable with. Hopefully people don't resort to that, since I do check email related to this site if there's a problem. But I also don't sit back here and lob pejorative attacks (at least I don't think I do).
Basically my point is that whether you blog anonymously, or you use your real name, if it's just online, it doesn't really matter what name you use. You can lose your online credibility. Then some people won't read you, others will. But if you lose that credibility, you won't expand your audience past bootlickers. If you want to keep or increase your credibility online, you need to act as if your pseudonym is just as important as your real name, and be careful about what you say. Just being anonymous doesn't give or take any credibility. Using your real name might carry credibility to it, but in my case, it probably wouldn't. But credibility aside, I choose to remain kinda sorta anonymous because I don't want to have the work problems. I don't know if there would be work problems, but this way there most likely won't be.
Now, as is obvious, I run this blog under a pseudonym. I do this because I like to write about things related to my professional field. But I also keep most of my work out of this blog. I don't talk about what company I work for, I don't talk about what work my company does or does not have, I don't talk about people I work with at other agencies, I try not to even talk about the policies of those agencies. I do this because I don't want my company to have to be aware of this blog. I don't want to be shut down, although my recent posting habits might make you think otherwise. In short, I don't really want casual lookers at this blog to be able to connect me personally or professionaly with this place where I write. Anyone who knows anything about the internet can find out way more information about me than I am comfortable with. Hopefully people don't resort to that, since I do check email related to this site if there's a problem. But I also don't sit back here and lob pejorative attacks (at least I don't think I do).
Basically my point is that whether you blog anonymously, or you use your real name, if it's just online, it doesn't really matter what name you use. You can lose your online credibility. Then some people won't read you, others will. But if you lose that credibility, you won't expand your audience past bootlickers. If you want to keep or increase your credibility online, you need to act as if your pseudonym is just as important as your real name, and be careful about what you say. Just being anonymous doesn't give or take any credibility. Using your real name might carry credibility to it, but in my case, it probably wouldn't. But credibility aside, I choose to remain kinda sorta anonymous because I don't want to have the work problems. I don't know if there would be work problems, but this way there most likely won't be.
March 24, 2004
This is what's been taking up my time lately. Sorry for the lack of posting. You should try the game. It's lots of fun.