The Hacker Factor Blog

I received my 2010 Census form last week. I was lucky, I got the short form. But there are so many things about the 2010 Census that bothers me... is the census even needed anymore?

A Better Life

According to the flood of TV and radio commercials, the census is needed to help improve our way of life.

One of the examples claims that the census ensures that schools have enough teachers. Huh? The census is conducted every 10 years. Kids who were born in 2001 are already 9 years old and have been in school for over 4 years.

The census doesn't tell schools how many students they will have. Instead, the number of students is known because households pay taxes to their school districts (number of potential families), hospitals track birth records (how many new students), real-estate sales track the number of incoming and outgoing households, and most importantly: school districts know that if they have x students this year, then they will likely have x students next year. There is always a little fluctuation, but it isn't in the hundreds of students between years.

The census may tell congress how to allocate funds for schools, but it isn't the only method. Congress knows where the money should be spent because they get annual numbers from the individual states. Using the census to identify teacher shortages? That sounds bogus to me.

Taking the High Road

Another commercial says that the census will help cities determine which roads to fix.

Again: the census is taken every 10 years. In less than 10 years, unfixed potholes can consume cars. And city planners already know where the traffic problems are. For example, when my city installed a traffic light for my neighborhood, they didn't wait 10 years. Instead, the city measured the traffic (those rubber hoses that go across the street). They looked at the traffic volume and installed a light -- less than two years. Saying that the census helps cities fix roads is bogus.

Unequal

The census is required by law. However, laws are supposed to be applied equally. With the census, most people get the short form but a few get the long form. You are legally required to complete whatever form you receive.

While I can certainly understand and agree with the use of a statistical sample for more detailed information, this isn't applying the law equally. If it were equal, then everyone would receive the same form.

I also have to wonder why my form asked for (1) my name, (2) my age, and (3) am I Hispanic? Is there some particular reason why Hispanics are called out in the census and other ethnic backgrounds are not?

Almost Private

The 2010 Census says that the information provided "is protected by law". But what does that really mean?

If you assumed that the information will be kept private, then you are grossly mistaken. The census will likely release a summary of names and potentially identifiable metrics within a year. (If your parents gave you a unique name, then you have no privacy.) The full details of the information provided today will become public record in 72 years.

All In The Family

So ignoring all of the issues about inequality, bogus claims of relevancy, and untrue privacy claims... what does the census provide?

If you are into genealogy then the census is a goldmine. It is one of the few sets of records that document families in the United States. Today, there are many records that track families, but few are official, government, public records. And even fewer are all located in one convenient location.

However, there are some serious limitations. For example, many marriages and cohabitation relationships last less than 10 years. Those will be completely missed by the census. Better resources for tracking people are available than any snapshot that the census provides. Today there are so many different documents tracking people that data mining the records is much more valuable than the census records.

As a valuable resource, I have my serious doubts about today's census. I mean, seriously, what value does it provide? As I previously mentioned, the census is slow, expensive, and inaccurate. While it was a great idea 100 years ago, today it just seems to be a waste of taxpayer money.

To quote Wikipedia: the chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group.

We usually see the chilling effect with regards to big companies trying to scare people away from discussing their faults. They use the threat of libel or slander to censer open criticisms.

While I am a strong supporter of copyright laws, I am also a supporter of fair use. Specifically, US copyright law (Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107) grants the following permissions under fair use:

[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In other words, the images that I include on my blog and in my conference presentations are permitted because they are used for teaching (showing analysis techniques), criticism, comment, and news-related reporting. However, I cannot use them in books or publications without permission since someone (the publisher) directly profits from the content.

Recently, we have seen two examples of the chilling effect.

Ralph Lauren Sucks

It appears that clothing designer Ralph Lauren does not like it when people point out how they photoshop images. The blog Photoshop Disasters highlights the most egregious digital image manipulations. They feature copies of the images for criticism, comment, education, and in some cases, parody. All of those are permitted uses under the Fair Use clause.

However, Ralph Lauren does not seem to believe that Fair Use applies to their works. Here's the image (provided by BoingBoing and included here for educational purposes concerning the chilling effect):

Basic human anatomy says that this person is missing ribs, and has distorted arms, legs, and hips. Either she is anorexic and close to death, or this is a horrible photoshop job.

I believe this model is Filippa Hamilton. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong -- all of Ralph Lauren's models look similar.) Filippa has lots of photos online that show her hips, arms, legs, and other body parts. Unless she has undergone a dramatic weight loss (and bone removal process) recently, she is not stick-figure thin with bony arms, chicken legs, and hips as wide as her head.

Ralph Lauren sent DMCA takedown notices to BoingBoing (a fair use parody site) and Photoshop Disasters.

Here's my thought: if Ralph Lauren does not want people pointing out their photoshop disasters, then maybe they should restrain from using photoshop to manipulate their pictures...

What should people do? I think someone should sue Ralph Lauren for false advertisement. If they must photoshop their ads and clothing, then it is false and misleading advertisement. The clothing does not look like that and it won't make you look super model thin.

Meanwhile, I'm always looking for good examples of digital manipulation for analysis and presentation at conferences. I'm putting out an open call for any Ralph Lauren images that have been digitally modified by Ralph Lauren. Please email me the URL to the image and/or page. (Don't send me the image -- No offense, but I'll harvest a copy myself to ensure that there is no additional manipulation during the acquisition process.)

Tweet Tweet Says The Jailbird

During last month's G-20 summit, two men used twitter to help protesters avoid police. On September 24, 2009, police arrested them for assisting the protesters. According to CNN:

The attorney for one of two men arrested during last month's G-20 summit for sending Twitter messages to help protesters argues that they were merely passing along public information.

The two were relaying to protesters "what routes they might take, where police have said don't go, and things of that nature," said attorney Martin R. Stolar.

Noting that police had made the information available on the Internet, Stolar said, "I don't see any way that you can criminalize passing on information that the police have put out publicly."

I personally think that the police are just bitter that they didn't think about twitter. I mean, they could have tweeted misinformation that would disperse the crowd, or have the protesters all move in an orderly fashion to the police station.

As far as the chilling effect goes, protesters are either going to be far more hesitant to tweet information, or (more likely) are going to resort to anonymous accounts and proxy relay systems to better organize their activities.

Thawing The Chilling Effect

The chilling effect is nothing more than legal bullying. In today's age of anonymous postings and online information, anything put online will be rapidly copied and criticized. Materials will be copied to blogs and twitter for reporting, education, and criticism -- all permitted fair use cases.

There are really only three ways to deal with a bully. You can give in, stand up to them, or go around. Giving in leads to the chilling effect. Standing up is what BoingBoing is doing. Hey BoingBoing: Good for you -- don't let them push you around. Finally, going around is the better organization via anonymity that I expect future protesters to use.

There are many topics that generate passionate responses on the order of religious wars. Politics like "anti-abortion/pro-choice", telecommunication security vs privacy, Gay marriage, Israel vs Palestine, and anything that separates Democrats from Republicans are certain to lead to heated debates. I was at a party recently where someone was talking about a Canadian hospital visit. I jokingly said, "You mean Canada has better health care than the United States?" Poof -- conversation stopped and died. Nobody wanted to touch this topic.

Every field has their own battles. Knitting vs Crochet -- talk about violent! Ford Thunderbird vs any other classic car -- who'd have thought this was so personal? Star Wars or Star Trek? (ST:TOS or ST:TNG? and don't say "Voyager".)

Even everyday tasks can cause emotional outbursts. How do you fold a towel? Do you do halves, thirds, lengthwise? There is really only one correct way to fold a towel... and you're doing it wrong. My personal favorite debate topic is dishwasher loading. Do you go for organization, space, no-touching, or just plop them all in? Rinse first or dirty?

Computer Wars

The computer field is not isolated from these battles. Being a well-rounded computer person, I know these debate topics well enough to argue either side. "Emacs or vi"? Duh, vi. And just ignore people who spout out "nano". Fewer buttons with deeper menus, or more buttons with less depth? White text on black, or black text on white? SCSI or IDE? (alright, that's a really old and moot debate.)

But nothing beats the king of debates: Unix or Windows? On one side, you have the corporate mega monster: Microsoft Windows. In fact, it wasn't until Windows 7 that we really had serious debates within the Microsoft community; do you upgrade to Windows 7, or not? Even though Microsoft's user community spans a variety of operating systems (Windows 2000, XP, Me, Vista, ...), they rarely make distinctions between platforms. It is "Windows" and they stand unified.

The same cannot be said about the Unix community. There are splits between real Unix (BSD verses SysV), and among Unix-like operating systems, Linux. Within the Linux family, there are debates between the various Linux branches. Many people have a strong preference toward RedHat, SuSE, Debian, and Gentoo, and their related derivative branches. Do you like real Debian, or Knoppix, Ubuntu (Edubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.), or other flavor that has a core based on Debian? With RedHat, you have Fedora, Mandrake, and CentOS, among others.

While Windows has a unified view, Unix/Linux does not. The debate usually becomes one unified voice of true believers against a disorganized army of heretics.

Unfair Advantage

Last week it was reported that Microsoft provided slides to BestBuy in order to "train" employees on how to promote Windows and deter Linux. All of the slides are clearly biased, and many contain provably false information. For example, one slide says that Linux does not have strong camera, iPod, printer, scanner, and MP3 compatibility. While I will agree with the scanner comment (many scanners use proprietary protocols and require vendor-specific drivers that are only available for Windows), I strongly disagree with the issue with cameras, printers, and MP3. I have yet to need to install a vendor driver for a camera or printer, and MP3 devices just look like hard drives. With Windows, I have found that many devices require vendor specific additions, and those additions usually make the operating system unstable.

Similarly, the slide claims that Linux has no authorized support. I'm certain that RedHat, Canonical, and SCO would all disagree with this claim.

The big difference in support comes from the provider. With Microsoft, they provide most of what you use. The operating system, most drivers, browser, text editor, word processor, and more. In addition, Microsoft provides certification to some vendors, to ensure compatibility. However, Microsoft does not provide support for any software that they do not provide. They cannot help you with Photoshop (even though it is certified).

With Linux, every component likely comes from some other vendor. Your operating system may say "Ubuntu", but the underlying core is Debian. The kernel comes from the Linux kernel group. The GUI is probably from the Gnome or KDE groups, and they run on top of X11, which comes from a different group. In general, every application comes from a different group.

However, almost every application on Linux is open source. When you pay for a RedHat support agreement, they truly support you. If they don't provide the software, then they will download it and see where the problem is located. And if the vendor/group doesn't fix the bug, then they will. (Maybe that is just their corporate support, but it was a really positive experience.) This is something that Microsoft will never do for you.

Misleading Slides

Another slide says that updates with Linux are difficult. ("Get the Facts Straight: Linux update and upgrades are easy. INCORRECT") They justify this by saying:

+ Linux can require a lot of time to maintain. For example, Ubuntu (a version of Linux) may have hundreds of updates a month.
+ It can be unclear to users whether or not software updates need to be applied immediately or are optional.

Ubuntu has one centralized update system. This checks for updates to anything you have installed. Since there are literally hundreds of groups maintaining the various programs you have on your computer, it is very possible to have dozens or hundreds of updated packages in a month. Most updates are minor bug fixes or security patches. The automated installer means that you don't need to do anything except possibly come in one morning and reboot the computer -- Ubuntu can either delay reboots until it is convenient for you to reboot, or reboot automatically. My "lot of time to maintain" consists of clicking on the reboot icon about once every month or two, so kernel and libc patches can be applied.

In contrast to Ubuntu, Windows has no centralized update system. Your operating system will check for updates. So will your browser. And your music player. And every piece of third-party software you install will independently check for updates. You can easily have dozens of updates a month, each requiring an independent system reboot. Unfortunately, this decentralization also means that you cannot easily pick and choose your updates. While I have never had an Ubuntu update hang my system, I have had many late nights recovering from Windows crashes after trying to install updates.

Their second bullet also brings up another religious war: is it better to patch immediately or delay until a convenient time? There are plenty of pros and cons here. With Ubuntu, you can choose whatever fits your needs. With Microsoft, they only release patches monthly, so you have no choice but to wait.

False Slides

Microsoft goes on to say that Linux is less secure than Windows.

+ There's no guarantee that when security vulnerabilities are discovered, an update will be created. Users are on their own.
+ There is no ability to set parental restrictions.

Wow... How many Linux viruses, trojans, or worms can you name? I can name four (Morris worm, Ramen worm, Slapper, and Satyr), and none were wide-spread. How about Windows? I can name dozens -- and that's just the wide-spread ones. Wikipedia lists hundreds of unique malware for Windows, but only 35 for Linux. At Symantec, they list over 200,000 different malware for Windows (and millions if you include minor variants), compared to 25 for Linux. And again, none of the Linux ones are wide-spread, even though there are millions of Linux computers.

Moreover, most open source groups respond quickly to security risks. The time between reporting and patch availability is usually measured in hours or days. Microsoft, on the other hand, rarely patches anything. There are well-known exploits for Windows that have been unpatched for years, and some that re-emerge periodically. In some cases, the open source community released Windows patches because Microsoft could not do it in a timely fashion.

As far as parental control goes, there are options. However, none are installed by default. You might want to check out some of the filters for OpenDNS. They offer parental controls to block based on content, site, and more.

Missing Elements

Ironically, the slides don't mention the strong points for Windows. For example, Microsoft Word and PowerPoint are still far better than OpenOffice and Impress. I used to say OpenOffice was close and would be a realistic alternative to Microsoft Office in five years. However, it has been a few years and they are still far behind. I sometimes use OpenOffice for quick reports, but nothing big or serious. And Impress is just not up to the quality I need for a public presentation.

Instead, I usually do my serious word processing and presentations using Word and PowerPoint... on a Mac.

Ad Infinitum

I could go though and list all of the problems with the remaining slides, but it isn't worth the time.

My office has a few critical servers. One is used for mail, internal-web, and file sharing. It runs a Linux operating system that was installed on Jun 1, 2002, and the operating system was last patched on Jan 10, 2005 -- when it was hardened against remote exploits. The system has never been compromised, and never had any problems. According to 'uptime', it has been powered on and running for over a year:

10:35am  up 458 days, 14:41,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

I know of no Windows system that can do the same.

We choose our tools based on our use models. For my usage as a programmer, researcher, forensic specialist, power user, and network god, I choose Linux. For reports, video editing, and graphics, I use a Mac. And I turned off my Windows computer nine months ago.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt are certainly in the news as we start this new year. And interestingly, so are polar bears...

Global Warming!

That's nothing like a good FUD. Yes: the Earth is getting warming. However, there is still no undebatable proof that it is man-made. Commonly cited items include the growing (now shrinking) Ozone hole, the missing (now returning) sunspots, the measurable increase in temperature on Mars, increasing CO₂ levels from coal, and the fact that there is really no long-term recorded data (100 years is not long term) but we think we are coming out of an ice age...

But hey! Global Warming!

And with each mention of Global Warming, people also mention the shrinking antarctic ice shelf and polar bears (who live in the arctic, not antarctic, but most American's don't know geography anyway).

You see, the polar bears habitat is shrinking (Global Warming). As a result, there are more news reports of bears interacting with humans. (I'm sure it has nothing to do with humans leaving out easy-to-get food.) A few bears even come into contact with people!

One news story making its rounds features photos of a polar bear chasing a guy around his truck. (In all sincerity, I have to wonder who was taking the pictures and why wasn't he helping the guy.) Forget the fact that there are polar bear encounters every year, even before we discovered Global Warming. It's a good thing the truck was a Ford -- and Ford saved his life without needing a bailout.

Then again, some people are just asking to be eaten by a polar bear. I love the quote about why the German guy entered the polar bear's zoo habitat:

Police said the man, before being let go, told them that he felt lonely and the bear — Knut, a famed attraction at the zoo — appeared lonely, too. Knut, 2, weighs 440 pounds.

In Germany, it takes a nut to understand a Knut.

Yosemite is GOING TO BLOW!

Yosemite is becoming more active. News reports say that the volcano under Yosemite could blow at any moment! Then again, this time last year they called Yosemite a "ticking time bomb". If their FUD didn't cause panic last year, then let's try it again!

But even if Yosemite blows, don't worry... it will reverse global warming and send us into a thousand-year deep freeze. Which will lead to more polar bears. Good thing we have Palin back in Alaska to shoot them darn bears, dontyaknow.

As an aside, the news article about Alaska also says:

During the summer, three serious grizzly bear maulings in Anchorage had residents on edge. A sow with cubs, who later was connected by DNA to one of the maulings, was killed by state biologists. Her cubs were sent to a zoo.

Since DNA testing takes a week or longer, I have to wonder: did they kill the bear before matching the DNA, or after?

18 More Days of George Bush!

For a lame duck, he is giving away billions like there is no tomorrow. Because for him, Obama is the end of the world, and "tomorrow" ends on January 20th.

So what does Bush have to do with polar bears? Plenty! Back in 2006, the Bush Administration wanted the bears listed as "threatened" and not "endangered". The classification difference determines how much we can interfere with their environment. In December 2008, the same administration pushed the US Fish and Wildlife Service to announce "that it will deny the polar bear the appropriate and necessary protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)." Now this lame duck is giving away oil drilling rights in the bear's habitat. (See! It all comes back to polar bears and global warming!)

It's the Economy, Stupid!

Yes, the stupid economy. We're still in a depression. No wonder they call it a "Bear Market".

Obama Is Coming!

To some, this is a serious threat. For example, Al Qaeda endorsed McCain. So Obama already has an unpopular start.

And then there are all of the anti-Obama conspiracy idiots... Sadly, the anti-Obama crowd cannot keep their conspiracies straight. First they said Obama was not born in the USA, then their said his birth certificate was fake. I disproved findings from TechDude and Polarik.

The conspiracy crowd also said that Obama was a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with that, but they use it to feed fear/uncertainty/doubt). Forget the fact that they also criticized Obama for his non-Muslim preacher and that the Indonesian elementary school document listing Obama's religion as "Muslim" also says that he was born in Hawaii. Uh, you can either pretend he was not born in Hawaii or you can try to argue that he is a Muslim, but the documents contradict arguing both.

Even that sad little troll, Polarik, cannot keep his story straight. For example:

• In some undated "legal" declarations (which, being undated, make me even question whether they are legal, or just more bullshit), Polarik claims different credentials than he posted in a public forum. He used to claim a "PhD is in Instructional Media and Experimental Psychology (dual major)." In the declaration, Polarik only mentions a "PhD in Instructional Systems" (not "Instructional Media").
  
  
• Polarik's declaration also doesn't mention his claim to be a handwriting expert, Masters in Statistics, and other unverifiable credentials.
  
  
• Polarik has also said that "Ron Polarik" is not his real name, except for the one posting where he claimed that it was a real name: "Ron is my real first name, and Polarik is what I got from my Father's real last name."
  
  
• Polarik has repeatedly claimed to use a pseudonym because he fears physical attack from pro-Obama supporters. Yet in his (likely fake and provably inaccurate) declaration, Polarik claims that the anonymity is to protect his employer (some unnamed government agency) and not any kind of physical retribution.

I could go on and shred his declaration, but I already did that. And yet, "Dr." Polarik still tries to tell people that Obama's birth certificate is fake.

I think the truth is a little deeper: Polar bears support Obama.

Sadly, Obama is already being promoted as the next best thing to Swiss cheese. Many worshipers are promoting Obama as if he were the Second Coming. Let's tone down the praise until after Obama starts his new job and actually accomplishes something. Remember, the last time we had a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress, Clinton was in office and they only held the majority for two years. Before that was Jimmy Carter (right President for the wrong year). Both times, the President lacked strong congressional support.

By now, we have all heard about airlines charging for luggage and drinks. This is all supposed to be a response to the high costs of fuel.

Unfortunately, these cost-cutting measures are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction that will not address the core problem. For example, few people will buy drinks if they cost $2. Instead, they will buy water in the airport for $1.50. Thus, the airlines will not only fail to generate revenue, they will also end up carrying more weight since a $1.50 bottle holds much more water than those little cups. Moreover, the airlines will still need to carry drinks "just in case" someone is willing to pay $2. Not only will the airlines not be making sales, they will end up carrying more weight on the planes!

Similarly, charging $15 - $25 per bag is going to have two impacts. First, everyone will have a carry-on. Since airlines began charging for checked baggage, I have not been on any planes where the overhead bins did not fill. Every flight ends up with gate-checked baggage. This means loading the plane is slower because gate checking take time, and the airlines miss out on the checked bag fee because you can't arbitrarily charge passengers just because they happen to get in line to board a little later.

However, the second issue is bigger: weight. The addition cost is supposed to cover the luggage's added fuel requirements due to weight. However, if I must pay $15 to check my bag, I'm going to be sure to use the largest bag available and fill it to the limit. This will give me the best cost benefit. Unfortunately for the airlines, my thinking is not unique. In my own unscientific observations, checked luggage seems bigger and heavier. People may be checking less luggage, but the checked luggage weighs more. I suspect that they are not turning any profit with even a $25 charge.

Lighten Up

Beyond the nickel and diming that really isn't benefiting the airlines, airplanes are trying to lighten the load. Lighter planes consume less fuel, making the flight less expensive for the airlines.

Some people have proposed charging by body weight. Fat people would pay more, right? Except that I can buy my ticket online and I don't have a scale hooked to the computer. And if they want to weigh me at the airport, then I'm going to wear a speedo since clothing adds 3-5 lbs. (And I'm one of those people who really shouldn't wear a speedo.)

Seriously though, wait until you see the purgers and starvation dieters who try to crash-diet in order to save cost. If you thought that passengers were irritated at the airlines now, wait until you load the plane full of starving passengers who don't want to pay $5 for a crappie box lunch...

A few airlines are making serious changes with regards to weight. They are trading security and safety for lower fares. For example, Air Canada's Jazz airline reduced personnel last month as a cost-saving move. This month, they have decided to remove life vests from their planes. (I'm not kidding.) They estimate that this will save a whopping one pound (0.45 kg) per passenger. A spokesman for Jazz reportedly said that Jazz doesn't fly over water, so life vests are not needed.

Of course if Jazz requested all passengers to not eat 24-hours before flying (offer a free cholesteral test for all fliers!) and to use the restrooms to... unload... before boarding, then 50 people could easily cut another 50lbs. Heck, why not change the name to Anorexic Airlines and only serve people who weigh under 100 lbs?

Then again, Air Canada has a pretty good track record. Since they rarely crash, why not remove the oxygen tanks? These are similar to the tanks used by hospitals and weigh around 10lbs. I don't know how many people a single tank can server, but I usually see them in every other overhead compartment. Let's say it serves 8 people. Then Jazz's 50-seater planes will need 6 tanks -- that's another 60lbs.

Besides, the oxygen is only needed while the plane is higher than 10,000 feet. If the plane looses pressure at 35,000 feet, the passengers won't die if the plane descends fast enough. The extra weight really isn't needed. Although I would recommend oxygen for the pilots, the passengers can suffer. I mean really, if the plane looses pressure that high up, "oxygen" isn't going to be the number one issue. And if the plane stays high too long, then the cold (hypothermia) will be just as damaging as any hypoxia -- and some airlines are currently charging for blankets.

But Wait! That's More!

Amazingly, this knee-jerk reaction isn't limited to the airlines. TSA recently announced a change to their security lines: they are adding colored stripes.

Black diamond or "Expert Traveler" lanes are for frequent fliers who know screening rules well.

"Casual Traveler" lanes, which are marked with a blue square, are for people who are familiar with airport security rules, but who don't want to be rushed.

Lanes that have a green circle are for passengers who are traveling with small children or who need assistance, according to the agency.

Will there suddenly be cases of road rage in the security line because someone in the black diamond lane should be in the blue lane? Will there be a red lane for terrorists or people carrying banned weapons? Right now, passengers can't even remember that they are carrying a bottle of water. Does TSA really think people will know which line to get into?

Then again, TSA also started the CLEAR system. This is the biometric system for speeding up check-ins (because pulling out your driver's license is such a hassle). This privilege only costs $128 for the first year. (There is no mention of the renewal cost.) And just ignore that isolated incident where a laptop containing CLEAR data was stolen, leading to the theft of personal and biometric data for 33,000 applicants.

Real Savings

The real way to cut costs is not to charge for minor services. The real way is to cut major expenses. For example, why is United still offering flights between Denver and Colorado Springs? Passengers must arrive at the airport two hours early so they can fly for 30 minutes? This $450 flight can be done cheaper and faster with a bus. The same goes for flights between Reagan National, Dulles, and BWI in the Washington DC area. In fact, most of these small puddle-jumpers can be cut and replaced with less expensive transportation options. Considering the human travel time, airports closer than three hours by car should not have transfer-shuttle flights.

If gas prices make flying prohibitive, then raise ticket costs. Don't charge passengers for necessities like the first suitcase or carry-ons. Cut fuel costs from idling at the gate by better organizing passenger loading. As an example, I recently flew on Southwest Airlines. This budget airline does not charge for checked luggage, not charge for drinks, and every seat has leg room. I was very impressed with their passenger loading system (line up the passengers in seat order! What a concept!) and even how they served drinks (take orders, then bring beverages; no cart in the aisle). Watching how the operation worked, I could only say "brilliant". No wonder Southwest has never entered bankruptcy.

Many airlines are hemorrhaging money, unable to keep up with operational costs, and charging convenience fees in the false belief that this will lessen their problems. They are wrong. These airlines are doing nothing more than flailing wildly as their revenue freefalls. I would not be surprised if airlines like United announced bankruptcy again.