Could This Have Happened in Any Other Country: Only In America

A few years ago in a coffee shop “,” there was a man who was so desperate, we’ll call him , that he decided he was going to steal the money out of the tip jar, (which contained less than $5.00 — thus, Desperado). Another man, we’ll call him , saw what Desperado was trying to do and chased after him. Hero and Desperado struggled outside until Desperado was able to break free. Desperado raced to his car and tried to make a quick getaway. In doing so, he ‘accidentally’ backed over Hero. Hero was rushed to the hospital, but succumbed to his head injuries and passed away.

Now, given that this happened in “far, far away,” Hero’s estate decided it would be most appropriate to file a lawsuit claiming that the coffee shop was at fault! Only in “far, far away,” would Hero’s family sue the coffee shop (because they’re actually part of a larger corporation with oodles of money) and not Desperado. It is clear that “far, far away’s” legal system needs some adjusting.

While I have introduced this as a fictitious scenario that took place in a fictitious land, — in the USA — recently! In 2008, a Desperado-character really did try to steal money from the tip jar and a Hero-character really did try to stop him. The Desperado-character really did “accidentally” run over the Hero-character who later succumbed to the head trauma. And, the Hero-character’s family really is suing the coffee shop (Starbucks), and !

I think that there are a number of noteworthy things here and I’ll try to summarize them briefly.

  1. How can you accidentally run someone over? I don’t mean to be funny, but if you’re engaged in criminal activity, isn’t your intent somewhat, say, criminal, so in trying to get away from the scene of the crime, wouldn’t that just be lumped in with the criminality of it all? I can understand the semantics in that the Desperado-character was maybe backing his car out of a parking space and the Hero-character just happened to be on the ground behind his car, but still — it seems a bit strange that in every article I’ve read about this, it’s bluntly stated that the running over of the Hero-character was accidental.
    ~
  2. I’m not going to talk about the absurdity that some lawyer actually thinks that they can make a case against Starbucks in this scenario (they’re really just doing their job, right?), but more importantly, I think it’s absurd that the legal system is set-up such that this is even a possible outcome! I’ve heard of a number of , but this one seems to go beyond the bounds of frivolousness. Why? Because they’re not even suing the human directly responsible for the death! It’s clear that the prime directive is to gain retribution (in the form of money, of course), for the death of the Hero-character.
    ~
  3. Is our society in that much trouble, really? I realize that this happened in 2008 and some may attribute this happening to the , but this scenario played out in March of 2008. At that point, and statistically, was similar to where it had been for the last few months. The tip jar apparently had less than $5. I suppose stealing from a tip jar at Starbucks is infinitely easier than , (unless you’re interested in stealing the pen attached to the counter?), but is that really what we’re coming to as a society?

Let’s Treat All Cars Like School Buses: Drive Safe!

According to the , “Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled” has been trending down since 2005. In 2005, there were 1.46 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. This means that for every 100 million miles traveled by car in the United States, there were 1.46 fatalities. That may sound like a rather low number, but consider that since this particular statistic has been kept, the highest this number has ever been was back in the first year it was kept, 1994, when the number was 1.73. In the years following 2005’s number of 1.46, we’ve seen the number go to 1.42 in 2006, to 1.36 in 2007, to 1.26 in 2008, and to 1.13 in 2009 (numbers for 2010 were not reported as of the writing of this post).

Looking merely at the statistics, this number seems to be trending downwards more than in any other 5-year period since 1994. While on the face of the statistical trend, it’s great, but really, should this number be above zero?

As I was driving home the other day, I saw a school bus van. Immediately, even before I could read ‘school bus’ on the side of the van, I was able to recognize the color of the van and know that it must have been a school bus. Typically, when I see a school bus, I tend to slow down (even a little bit). I would guess that the fair majority of the population would do the same. Why do we do this? Well, in part, . More than that, I slow down when I see a school bus because usually, there are kids on-board, and who wants to cause an accident that harms children?

As a nation, and maybe a species in general, we tend to look more favorably upon our young. That is, when faced with a moral dilemma upon saving people, we almost always save the child over ourselves (or other older people in the group). There are many different theories as to why this is, but I won’t get into them. I’m more interested in our behavior in the car around school vehicles. We slow down when we see school vehicles, but why don’t we slow down when we see other vehicles?

Shouldn’t we drive with the same care and caution, all the time, that we do when we see a school vehicle? When we see a school vehicle, something about the vehicle stands out (), and we immediately are more cautious with our driving. I think we should be just as cautious around other cars as we are around school buses. What if all cars were painted the same color as school buses? Do you think we’d be just as cautious around other cars as we are around school buses? My guess is that the attention-grabbing feature of the color would soon fade as we all became accustomed to seeing that color on every car.

But shouldn’t we still drive as if every car is a school bus? Every car on the road carries “precious cargo” — another human being. All life, old, young, middle-aged — is precious. All life is worth preserving and caring for. There needn’t be any fatalities when one is trying to go from point A to point B. It’s just unnecessary. Wouldn’t you want someone who makes a turn down a windy country road, who sees the light blue color of your car to slow down a little, because you’re approaching from the other direction? I certainly would.

Spirituality From an Unlikely Source: Will Smith

I was on YouTube like I had been a and on the sidebar, I noticed a video under the suggestion heading by the title of: . I’ve always subscribed to the theory that our words and thoughts have an effect on the world around us (check out our or , and you’ll see some of the kinds of books that I recommend discuss these principles in their books), but I didn’t expect this kind of wisdom from a famous actor.

It’s not that I don’t think that Will Smith has the capacity to understand or even believe these kinds of things, it’ s just that with entertainers, it’s harder to imagine them outside of some of the roles they’ve played. After watching the almost 10-minute video of many clips spliced together where Will advocates the theory that our thoughts have a decided effect on the outcome of our lives, I couldn’t help but write a post here about it. In fact, I’ve even included the video at the end because I really think it’s worth the 10 minutes it takes to watch it.

One of the interesting perspectives that he offers is on talent and skill. He says:

Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft.

I think that there is definitely truth to this and it is backed up by the work of in his book . In it, Gladwell purports that to be over-the-top successful at something, you need to spend upwards of 10,000 hours doing that something. Gladwell cites an example of , explaining to the reader that for 4 straight years, The Beatles were able to perform live in Germany. In this time, Gladwell claims that The Beatles accumulated over 10,000 hours of (practice) at their craft and that when they came back to England, they were an instant-hit. Gladwell also cites the example of Bill Gates who, when in high school, gained access to a computer. Gates spent nearly all of his free-time on this computer, accumulating hours and hours of (practice), which eventually led to .

Another interesting quote from the video:

You don’t try to build a wall. You don’t set out to build a wall. You don’t say I’m gonna build the biggest, baddest, greatest wall that’s ever been built. You don’t start there. You say, I’m gonna lay this brick, as perfectly as a brick can be laid. And, you do that every single day, and soon you have a wall.

I’m sure this concept is not new to anyone, about “,” but it’s something that I think is worth repeating, and I think it’s also adds a different level of authority to hear someone like Will Smith say it.

I want to do good. I want the world to be better because I was here.

Wouldn’t it just be fabulous if we all walked around with this attitude: wanting the world to be better because we were here. Performing acts, volunteering, making a difference – making the world a better place.

I just believe that. I believe that I can create whatever I want to create.

Around of the video, he begins talking about how our thoughts are physical things in the universe.

Our thoughts, our feelings, our dreams, our ideas — are physical in the universe. That, if we dream something, if we picture something, if we commit ourselves to it, that is a physical thrust towards realization that we can put into the universe. That the universe is not a thing that’s gonna push us around. That the world and people and situations are not something that’s gonna push us around. That we are gonna bend the universe and command and demand that the universe become what we want it to be.

Celebrities can be a mixed bag. They can run the spectrum from those that are having a hard go of things, like , to those like Will Smith who use their celebrity for other means. Whenever I learn that a celebrity is involved in the kinds of thinking that Will Smith is, I can’t help but smile just a little bit, knowing that maybe our world really is changing faster than we know.

The Next Facebook: We’re Asking The Wrong Question

I wonder what it is about humans that make us so eager to find the next something. Awhile after eBay made it big with their online auction site, there were articles that popped up in newspapers, magazines, and other writing outlets, positing what would be the next eBay. Even though eBay has been around for nearly 15 years, there are still articles written about what will be the next eBay (a sampling: , , and ). The confusing thing for me is, why are we looking for the next eBay, shouldn’t we be looking for the next big thing — in general?

The same question that was asked when eBay made it big is being asked about Facebook now that it has gotten so big. “What’s going to be the next Facebook?” (Again, a sampling: , , and .) I can even remember an article about how one of the original investors in Facebook, , thinks that . How, or maybe more accurately, why are these people trying to figure out what the next Facebook is going to be? I wonder if it’s more a stature thing. They are asking about what is going to be the next big thing rather than what will bump these internet companies from atop the food chain.

Some of the articles I’ve read about this area really trying to figure out what is going to usurp eBay or Facebook from their status as an online auction site (or social networking site, in Facebook’s case). To my mind, there really won’t ever be a next eBay or a next Facebook. The technology that knocks Facebook off of its pedestal will not be seen coming as the next Facebook. It might even be something totally different. It could be something more scientific, really, that garners support and slowly starts to grow across a few industries. I think it’s ludicrous to think that there will be a next anything with regard to the kinds of technology and organizations that we have today.

Facebook is too smart (and beginning to be too powerful) to let a start-up come up with an idea that is slightly off-center of Facebook, but that could siphon off Facebook’s users. They have more than enough money to dedicate to R & D that will have the company expanding upon itself for quite some time.

Companies like Facebook and eBay succeed because they have found a ‘sweet spot.’ In the Venn diagram to the right, the ‘sweet spot’ would be characterized by the triple intersection of A, B, and C, in either the top left portion, highlighted by a bright green color, or in the bottom portion, highlighted by a mix of red, green, and blue. This triple intersection can vary from (revolution) to (revolution). I think one of the main reasons for the success of eBay was in part due to the Western world’s undeniable urge to shop. As the internet started to grow, people began seeing the internet as a legitimate place to buy things. As eBay was a place to buy things, naturally, people flocked to the site. As they learned they could also sell things to, well, then it just took off.

For eBay, and more importantly in the case of Facebook, the development of their company (or product) filled a desire in the population that the population didn’t otherwise know existed. People didn’t really know (before Facebook came) that they wanted to spend countless hours on the computer interacting with their friends. I think that articles that try to pinpoint what the next anything is going to be are a little near-sighted. If these people were really curious as to what the next big thing was going to be, they should be trying to identify desires of the population that haven’t already been satisfied. I suppose if they could do that, they’d probably not be writing articles about it.

Mass Collaboration Will Change the World

One of the benefits to being a , is that you’re able to subscribe to other users. If there is a particular user that publishes videos that you’ve liked in the past, say maybe (you may have seen one of their videos — they’re the ones who write on a whiteboard depicting the ideas from the presenter’s presentation), then when you login to YouTube, if this user has published any new videos, you’ll see it right on your homepage. Additionally, you can also get notifications of new videos via email, but who likes a cluttered inbox, right?

I recently logged into YouTube to find that one of users I’ve subscribed to, [the same user that has uploaded such popular videos as: ] had uploaded a new video called: . I like music, but I like collaboration even more, and most importantly, I was intrigued by the idea of a ‘virtual choir.’ I clicked on the video and watched the presentation by Eric Whitacre. Wow! Wow! Wow! I’ve embedded the video into this post to the right of this paragraph and strongly suggest spending the 15 minutes to watch it [Be sure to watch it in full screen mode, too!].

What struck me most about watching Eric’s presentation is the element of collaboration. In the first video [embedded in the next paragraph], , there were 185 voices in over 12 countries. In the second video [embedded at the end of this post], (which debuted quite recently, April 6th of this year to be exact), , there were 2052 voices in over 58 countries. Can you imagine singing with over 2000 people in person much less, virtually and across the world? This project reminds me a bit of , where they had people in over 156 countries join together and sing at the exact same time. Projects like these get me really excited!

Projects like these give me hope for the future of the world. It is absolutely moving that there are causes that motivate people to gather together across obscure places. The first (Lux Aurumque) of Eric’s videos was moving, but the second, was even more moving! More than two-thousand people decided that this was something that they wanted to be part of. This project was something that they wanted to contribute a piece of their creativity and flare to. This project was something that they thought was inspiring. And can you really disagree with that?

This bit of collaboration demonstrated by the people who spent hours perfecting a video to send to Eric Whitacre makes me think of the possibilities… What if we could get 10,000 people singing together? What if we could get 100,000 people singing together? What if we could get a whole country to sing together? I wonder what kind of positive emotion and inspiration we could invoke from the people of a nation, if they were all singing a song (like the ones in these videos) at the same time. I wonder what that could do for “world peace.”

Behavior of Sports Fan(atic)s Rival Behavior of Religious Fanatics

A couple of days ago as I was driving into town, I heard the guy on the radio talking about some sort of . Given the , my attention wasn’t immediately tuned into what was happening. As the reporter expanded upon the story, I was appalled. The reporter proceeded to tell the listeners that one, , 42-year old and San Francisco Giants’ fan, is showing signs of brain damage after having been severely beaten by, Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

The history of violence involving fans is well documented, and typically, violence in spectator sports is more closely associated with football (or soccer for those folks in the US and Canada). The last incident of “fan violence” in baseball was in August of 2009, when a at and hit, Philadelphia Phillies centerfielder, Shane Victorino. The outfielder had some beer land on him, which is unacceptable of course, but other than that, nothing too serious.

Some of the more recent incidents of violence include a match between Italy and Serbia in October of 2010. The start of the game was delayed over half an hour. Once the game got underway, before they were ten minutes into the 1st half, a flare was thrown onto the field causing more rioting. The game was called and one team was later awarded the victory based on the fans that were causing trouble.  In March of 2010 during a game, climbed over the glass, into the bench of the opposing team, and proceeded to strike one of the goalies over the head several times with a stick. The goalie had to leave the bench area, as blood was running down his face, and he was later diagnosed with a concussion. If you’re interested, there’s a .

On the face of these myriad incidents of violence by fans in sports, I can’t help but think of the true meaning of the word fan. The word fan, comes from the word fanatic, which means, “. . .” In my opinion, these fans are definitely exhibiting “extreme enthusiasm” in support of their team. In the definition I provided, I left out five words that appear after the word zeal. These five words: “as in religion or politics.”

When I hear about these horrendous acts of violence committed in the “name of one’s team,” I can’t help but make the connection to another brand of fanaticism — religious fanaticism. After the events of the world was led to believe that these attacks were committed by religious fanatics (and that may well be the case, but I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of any of the explanations for what happened). Since then, opening up the or the to find an article about someone killing in the name of religion has become somewhat normalized because of how often it happens. Is there really a big difference between religious fanaticism and sports fanaticism?

If there is, to me, the difference is negligible, and I for one, think this is awful. Fans identify with their teams so much so that they feel compelled to harm another human being! I was an athlete and I can tell you, after the game is over, life still goes on. You go on and eat your meals, sleep, read books, and do all of the other things that people do. To some fans, when the game ends, their life, in a way, ends. I think this kind of attachment to sports is unhealthy. Similarly, I think the attachment to religion that is displayed by those who believe they are doing right by their religion by killing in the name of their deity is also a little bit too far. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the thinking that goes into their decision and prosper in the afterlife, but it is my opinion, that there is never a valid reason to kill another human being, (or one’s self for that matter).

Aren’t We All Just Baby Chicks Following a Mother Hen?

Because of where I live, I have the great fortune of being able to look out my window and see an abundance of roosters. And because of this abundance of roosters, undoubtedly, there are a number of baby chicks. These baby chicks don’t just wander aimlessly across the lawn looking for food or something to do. These baby chicks, instead, are quite deliberate in their actions. In fact, these baby chicks follow around the mother hen. Partially, because their life depends upon it. Maybe not where I live, but in some parts of the world, if a baby chick strays to far from momma, it’s likely to be another creature’s tasty snack.

As I watched these baby chicks following the mother hen, I looked a little closer at their actions. I wanted to see why it was they were following mother around. From what I was able to gather, these baby chicks are following mother around because they’re safer (read: ), but more than that, mother hen shows them what’s foot and what’s not food. This may have been some sort of anomaly, but from the dozens of  minutes I was able to watch (on different days), the hens would go to an area of the lawn and then call the chicks over to where she was (usually a distance of mere away). The mother hen would then begin pecking away at the grass (or something on the lawn) and the baby chicks would follow suit.

I soon learned, just from watching, that this was how the baby chicks were able to eat. Either the mom was helping to pull something up out of the ground or she was identifying what was nutritious for the baby chicks. The mother hen would vary her time in how long she spent in an area. When she left one area, some of the baby chicks would immediately follow her, while others, remained behind (to pick-up the scraps?) As I continued to watch the dynamics of the situation, I began to be able to notice parallels to the news of society.

The different big-branded news corporations (, , , , , etc.) are all like mother hens and us, the viewers, are like baby chicks. When one of these news conglomerates reports on a story, immediately, our attention is drawn to that area of the world. When one of the mother hens calls the baby chicks attention to one area of the lawn, immediately, that is where their attention goes. The chicks run over to see what’s happening. Like the baby chicks, the viewers become immediately concerned with whatever is being reported to them.

When a reporter or hen talks about a certain story, they are drawing your attention to that story. Unintentionally or not, they are also drawing your attention away from any other story that they could have reported on. As the reporter moves onto another story the next day, some viewers move onto the next story with them, while some viewers stay enveloped in “yesterday’s news.” Sometimes, this is for good (maybe their favorite team won a big game) and sometimes it’s maybe for not so good reasons (?)

Being able to watch these baby chicks follow around the mother hen allowed me to see something that is played out in society time and time again. Somebody (the hen) says xyz is important, so instantly, everyone else (the baby chicks) buy-in to the story to see just what xyz about. My point in this story about the hen and the baby chicks is that all of us, in one way or another, is following around a hen. Whether we watch the news on any particular station, read about news on the internet, or get our news from our friends. Regardless, our attention is being drawn to a story (more times than not) because someone said it was important. I think it is paramount to remember that had we been following a different hen, our views, beliefs, and ideas about the world would likely be completely different.

Would You Take a Pill to Make You Smarter?

I had the chance to see the recent film, , and I must say, the premise makes for a good conversation. The protagonist is a failed writer who stumbles into a secret drug that allows him to harness his intelligence prowess. I won’t go into any further detail of the film, but I do want to talk about this perceived ‘super-human’ ability that the movie is based on.

Let’s say that you’re given the opportunity to take a pill. This pill will allow you to use your own ability to its full extent. Meaning, the pill won’t add anything to what you have, but will merely allow you to access all of it more readily. This pill, also, will not have any side effects. The drug has been tested up the wazoo for any potential “negative” side effects and there aren’t any. Would you take it?

This, to me, is a very interesting dilemma. Initially, one would think that it’s only a as there isn’t currently a drug on the market that has these capabilities, side effects or not, or is there? Part of me thinks that if someone can make a movie about it, there is probably some truth to the premise. So, maybe there is a secret drug that enhances one’s abilities. Maybe this secret drug doesn’t enhance one’s abilities as much as the movie portrays and maybe the side effects are worse than what they talk about in the film.

Either way, it’s something interesting to consider. I think, for me, it would be a very tough decision. Thankfully, I do not currently possess a drug with these capabilities, so I am not faced with this moral dilemma. And isn’t it partially a moral dilemma? Taking this kind of drug would, at least partially, change the person who took it. The argument could be made that the person is really just a better version of themselves, but then the counter-argument says that changing one’s self (even for the better) is changing who you are.

Let’s face it — it would be really cool to be able to ‘access’ all of one’s abilities just by taking a pill. Something tells me that we probably can access all of our abilities (like the protagonist after ingesting the pill) and not have the ill-effects from the drug. Many people would consider , (the act of describing targets [people, places, etc.] at a distance) to be a somewhat super-human capability, but we, as humans, have already been able to do this (without the use of drugs). In the 1970s, the. Heck, you can even to see if you can “remotely view.”

There really is so much already written about this topic that a post like this could turn into a thesis or a dissertation. These ‘special powers’ have been part of some of the world’s religion for thousands of years. buddha tibet buddhismIn Buddhism, they have what is known as a . The Sanskrit word, Siddhi, translates to perfection, but what it is referring to is psychic powers. So, in this sense, some religions already believe that humans possess the capacity to attain these abilities without the use of drugs.

Overall, the idea of increased intelligence is fascinating. For me, it would be important that to whom this ability was bestowed (or earned or however it happened) be to someone who was highly ethical and moral. I really wouldn’t want a super-human trying to swindle money from people. From my perspective, increased intelligence or (enhanced ability to access one’s intelligence) could come in very handy for engineering peace between nations.

Misrepresenting the News: Infer-mation Overload

In a previous post, I talked about how the . This post is about a blatant misrepresentation of fact.

In the first line of , the author writes:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Al Jazeera is gaining more prominence in the U.S. because it offers “real news” — something she said American media were falling far short of doing.

If you watch the video that accompanies said article, or read the article on the , you see that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is actually saying:

“In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”

Clinton does not explicitly say that the U.S. media does not offer real news. Instead, she says that American news is not particularly informative. One can see how this can be inferred from what she said, but it is not what she said. This is something that irks me about news agencies in general, but I can understand how it is necessary in our entertainment-driven society.

Why can’t we just have news that reports on the facts rather than one that tries to ‘‘ the news in one direction. This has gone so far that after debates between political candidates, representatives from either side are meant to spin what their respective candidate said in what is called the “.” We actually call the place where this happens the spin room. Isn’t that a little far? Shouldn’t we just be talking about what the candidate said?

Maybe my line of thinking is too utopian. Maybe my ideals are a little lofty in that there needn’t be a place for — intentionally or unintentionally. I’d really just like to have someone tell me the facts of the day and what that could potentially mean, from a systematic point of view.

In today’s world where there are proponents from both side jockeying for mine (and your) attention at 6pm to get the daily dose of the facts, it almost seems safer to watch both of the news to get a more accurate perspective on what’s been happening. However, some sources like one, and one, explain that watching the news can actually make you less informed about what’s going on. With the advance of social networking, maybe it’s almost safer just to follow the to see what’s happening in the world.

Advancing America’s Public Transportation System: High-Speed Rail in the USA

When it was first announced that the US was going to work on , I was very excited! Growing up in the , I am very familiar with the value of public transportation. I often rode a bus to and from school. As I matured and wanted to explore downtown with my friends, we’d ride the to get there from the suburban area we lived. Beyond that, when I needed to make trips between Detroit and Toronto, I would ride the between Toronto and Windsor instead of taking the 45 minute flight. Public transportation is a great way, in my opinion, to feel better about reducing one’s .

Don’t get me wrong, I love flying just as much as the next person and I’d much prefer it for travel to/from Europe to/from North America — who’d want to take a passenger ferry across the Atlantic given how much longer it would be? When I look at what the current high-speed rail map in the US looks like and then I look at the current high-speed rail map of Europe… it’s flabbergasting!   I’ve hyperlinked the two maps to bigger versions of themselves, so you can really get an idea for how much more advanced Europe is than the US when it comes to their rail system. It’s almost a little embarrassing just how much farther ahead Europe is in this regard.

Some people try to argue that Europe is much smaller, so a rail system makes more sense there. Well, as we can see from the image to the right (), Europe is not actually that much smaller than the USA. In fact, they’re pretty comparable in size. One of the reasons that Europe can sometimes be perceived as smaller than the USA is a function of . Regardless, from my perspective, there really aren’t any good reasons as to why the US hasn’t adopted a high-speed rail system. Even adds his two cents to the debate. In all my time watching Bill Nye as a kid (and in the classroom), I don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak so blatantly negative about anything! He must really feel passionate about this particular circumstance.

Not everything surrounding the high-speed rail system in the US has to be about negativity. In taking a closer look at what the network of rail systems will look like when the projected plan is completed (in 2030), is kind of exciting. Passengers will be able to go from Vancouver, BC, to Miami, FL — all by high-speed rail! They could go from San Diego, CA, to Montreal, QC, again — all by high-speed rail! For me, someone who cherishes the value of public transportation, this is really exciting.

As the plans and the work for this public transportation system continue, I wonder what Europe (and Asia) will come up with next in the way of public transportation. Many areas on these continents already have high-speed rail systems, so, it is logical to think that they will be busy thinking up the next great transportation revolution. Regardless, I’m very excited to see the progress being made in the world with regard to public transportation.