Slashdot Mirror


Gates and MS Don't See Eye-To-Eye On CO2

Sam Machkovech writes "Bill Gates's speech at last week's TED Conference centered on 'moving to zero-carbon energy, and our need to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.' His choice of subject was an abrupt turn from The Gates Foundation's typical humanitarian topics, but he insisted that energy innovation is crucial to his Foundation's goals. A move by Microsoft today proves that Gates's old company has less interest in that carbon-neutral goal — Microsoft has begun campaigning against a bridge redesign that would result in more bus and transit options for commuters between Seattle and the company's homebase of Redmond, WA."

50 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's not really a conflict here. It's just an attempt to spin the story against Microsoft, for no apparent reason, since they want the bridge done as soon as possible. Read the linked article.

  2. wait, what...? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    "moving to zero-carbon energy"

    That would be the end of life as we know it. Quite literally, as a matter of fact, since we're all made of carbon.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:wait, what...? by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not made out of carbon, I'm made out of jesus's love power!

      You don't exist. Go away.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:wait, what...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Go and sequester yourself.

    3. Re:wait, what...? by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are hereby awarded 1 "I was retardedly obtuse on the internets on purpose" merit badge.

      Congratulations.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:wait, what...? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would be the end of life as we know it. Quite literally, as a matter of fact, since we're all made of carbon.

      Bah. I'm nitrogen-based, so the only thing I'll need to worry about is head shoulders shampoo.

    5. Re:wait, what...? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think 'zero-carbon energy' implies that we could no longer use humans as fuel.

    6. Re:wait, what...? by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah. I'm nitrogen-based, so the only thing I'll need to worry about is head shoulders shampoo.

      Dude, all I have to do is inhale and I will end you.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Devil's advocate by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The changes Microsoft made to both Windows Vista and 7 have resulted in more CO2 savings that most other efforts combined. I am of course talking about the default and recommended power settings in Windows along with the "best practice" guidelines given to their corporate partners. Microsoft has also added support for power saving features to Windows ahead of what the hardware and or drivers in the market offered...

    1. Re:Devil's advocate by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>The changes Microsoft made to both Windows Vista and 7 have resulted in more CO2 savings that most other efforts combined.

      Which is really sad, since the overall effect is quite small.

      If we'd gone nuclear since the 70s, we'd have met every CO2 target out there today, and we wouldn't be having all this annoying debate. Well, we'd be having some kind of annoying debate, but not so much over CO2 production.

      I watched that talk by Gates a few days ago, and he has an interesting design for a nuclear reactor, that basically would work like burning a candle - "burning" starts on one end of the nuclear log and proceeds down the log until 50 years later, when you pop it out and put a new log in. The little bit of waste left over could be put into a new log, and it runs on unenriched uranium, which makes fuel a lot less expensive, and a lot more available. It could all be a pipe dream, but it would be great if they could get it working. Given that Gates can bankroll all the R&D out of his deep pockets, I'm cautiously optimistic about Terrapower.

      The sad thing is that environmentalists have a sort of knee jerk reaction every time they hear the word nuclear, even though it is the only power source that is cheap, safe, and good for the environment. The only people who oppose it are the ignorant (Nuclear Power means Nuclear War!) or people who think life would be AWESOME if we could all go back to living in caves.

    2. Re:Devil's advocate by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

      The sad thing is that environmentalists have a sort of knee jerk reaction every time they hear the word nuclear, even though it is the only power source that is cheap, safe, and good for the environment. The only people who oppose it are the ignorant (Nuclear Power means Nuclear War!) or people who think life would be AWESOME if we could all go back to living in caves.

      Wow, you have created some sort of God-Emperor of Strawmen there.

    3. Re:Devil's advocate by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I don't know if it's completely true. No one can know if it's completely true. From what I've heard, there's reactors now where the waste is something actually useful, or can be easily converted to non-hazardous materials, so at the very least, now is the time to start a massive push to nuclear, supplimented by renewable sources like tidal/geothermal/solar/wind as regionally appropriate.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Devil's advocate by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sad thing is that environmentalists have a sort of knee jerk reaction every time they hear the word nuclear

      I think it's a small but vocal minority. I doubt any environmentalist that thoroughly researched it would recommend coal or gas over nuclear. (those are the current solutions in the US)

      Certainly, we should avoid living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, just to be safe - but denying such an efficient form of energy generation because of possible risks seems fool hearty - and perhaps even hypocritical. For example, there's significantly more evidence out there that genetically modified corn (and the fructose produced from it) is causing all sorts of genetic damage and diseases(obesity, heart disease, etc.), but that doesn't stop us from shoving it down our faces, because it tastes good.

      And we're worried about Nuclear? Why exactly?

  4. troll... by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Without reading anything...this sounds like trolling.

    There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to oppose a bridge that may well be a bad idea to build.

    --
    Bottles.
    1. Re:troll... by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure they've already de-trolled the area. It's a nasty process evicting a troll from his home once he's settled in.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:troll... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to oppose a bridge that may well be a bad idea to build.

      They're opposing any further delay for replacing an old, existing bridge. There is already an approved design for the new bridge, but some want to change the design to accommodate more HOV and public-transit lanes. From TFA:

      The state Senate has signed off on the so-called "A+" option, which would include six lanes total, with two lanes for high-occupancy vehicles and buses. McGinn's proposal ... is to come up with a new 520 plan that would incorporate high-capacity transit (light rail or bus-rapid transit) as well as two HOV and two general-purpose lanes.

      Apparently, the existing bridge could fall into the water at the next earthquake and it's a main route for Microsoft employees to/from the campus.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:troll... by e2d2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The irony is they took out the advertisement to oppose delays on replacing the existing bridge, and in turn doing so they are "against" another proposal that would add more mass transit.

      From TFA, the statement made by MS in their full page ad:
      While there are still some final design issues that need to be resolved with the City of Seattle, we should not let last-minute objections undermine the hard-won agreements already in place for the rest of the project. Doing so would cause yet more delay, increase the cost to taxpayers, and put this vital transportation and economic corridor at risk. The current bridge is 47 years old, and state engineers warn that it could sink in a major storm or earthquake.

      So basically they want it finished now, not sitting in government limbo like so many other infrastructure improvements do.

      I'd also like to point out the obvious: Bill Gates is not Microsoft.

    4. Re:troll... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, they're not directly opposing mass transit. They're opposing efforts to delay the expansion of the existing (car only) bridge because the expansion has been needed (light rail or no) for a long time (a decade or so), and now that they've finally got an agreement worked out, they don't want to go back to the drawing board.

      I don't know the details of the current bridge plans, but when I worked out there, it was patently obvious the bridge needed expansion. The highway leading up to it on the eastern side (the MS side) was three lanes each way, one of which was an HOV-3 lane. Problem was, when you hit the bridge, it narrowed to two lanes, eliminating the HOV lane. Which meant all the HOV travelers had to merge back in, and the merging itself created massive traffic jams. The HOV lane was only really useful at the edges of rush hour; in the middle of rush hour it would back up almost as badly as the non-HOV lanes (and keep in mind, buses were using it to, so mass transit wasn't a workaround). If they could just expand the bridge by one lane each way, and make the extra lane HOV-3, carpooling would make a lot more sense, as would riding the bus, and even people in the non-HOV lanes would benefit a bit (since the last second merging wouldn't exacerbate otherwise minor traffic jams).

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    5. Re:troll... by dreadlord76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> This from the company that has cheated the state of Washington out of Billions of dollars in taxes.
      All large business attempts to minimize their tax burdens via legal means. How many home owners have been taught that a "Home mortgage is a great tax deduction!"? As long as you do it legally by the law, there is no cheating involved.
      Pick any WA politician, and ask would they rather get those taxes, or would they like Microsoft to move their HQ and jobs elsewhere.
      At least they didn't move their HQ to a PO Box in the Cayman islands...

    6. Re:troll... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So Microsoft is Anti-Envriomentalist because it doesn't want to add public transit that most people wont use. Being a real environmentalist is being a realist too. Every choice you take has a trade off, Trying to push too green may cause a bridge that is not efficiently used. Thus creating a negative impact. Being green just to wave a flag to say Look I am green I am a good human being is often the worst thing you can do as you are not evaluating what you are doing and what tradeoffs you have.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:troll... by ashridah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's be 100% clear about this. I take that bridge to work every day.

      It is one of the worst, most overly congested bridges I've ever seen. It's congested all day every day except sunday and between about 9pm -> 6am, generally speaking, and right now, it seems like getting a new bridge in sooner would do more to alleviate carbon production than waiting for extra PT could ever hope to achieve in any kind of useful timeframe.

      Simply put, when taking the bridge, I spend up to an hour, for what should be a 15-20 minute trip. That's around 30 minutes of extra idle time in my car, which could easily be saved. We also already have functioning public and private bus systems across the bridge, and that's not going to go away.

      Additionally, this is a company that went out and bought a bunch of coaches to setup their own private transit system so that even more employees could leave their cars at home in places where there was no effective PT to campus. I hardly think this is an example of Microsoft not caring about the environment or carbon emissions. We've also been working hard to consolidate and reduce the amount of computer lab space we're using, reducing energy costs, setting more machines to sleep at night ,etc.

      This article is a complete hatchet job designed to just paint Microsoft in the worst possible light. I'm not surprised that kdawson posted it in the slightest.

    8. Re:troll... by freemywrld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, public transit is heavily utilized here in the Seattle area and many people support the plan for more rapid transit options over the bridge because as it stands now, due to congestion, the buses are stuck in gridlock with everyone else. More dedicated lanes for buses means less sitting in traffic and now that the light rail is complete, people are already anxious to see its extension both north and east over Lake Washington. Finishing the bridge rapidly will only increase the costs to add rail to the eastside later (or more likely cause it to not happen at all, devaluing the light rail as a transit option for many) instead of just doing it now while they are already going to to be rebuilding.

  5. I, for one, am shocked... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That a guy who has practically unlimited money and a seemingly sincere desire for world improvement(some of the "educational" initiatives that basically boil down to getting 3rd world kiddies using MS Office are arguably cynical; but nobody puts money into malaria research except for philanthropic reasons) and a callously profit-maximizing corporation with stockholders to appease might not be in complete agreement. However could this be?

    1. Re:I, for one, am shocked... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      nobody puts money into malaria research except for philanthropic reasons

      Oh I don't know, they can't very well buy MS products if they're dead now can they?

      In all seriousness, why is giving '3rd world kiddies' free access to your companies software cynical? Ok, yes you can make the argument that you're trying to indoctrinate them, but isn't it more likely that Bill Gates genuinely believes that MS products are some of the best available and that the kids should have the best available products? Especially since, given his contacts, the software can be had at little to no cost? Not every act of a millionaire is duplicitous, it seems to me that he's just trying to do the most good possible. His opinion of the software may be wrong, but I doubt that he is conciously trying to brainwash the developing world.

  6. only 2 general lanes? by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Tha alternative plan MS is arguing against has only two (one each way) lanes for general car use - no wonder they don't want it. Light rail and long range buses are only good if lots of people want to use them. HOV lanes are only good if people can be convinced to carpool. Apparently MS management feels the employees want to drive their own cars to work by themselves. If that's the case, making them idle in the traffic snarls created by the one general lane each way bridge will not only make everyone late to work but also really exacerbate the smog problem.

    1. Re:only 2 general lanes? by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HOV lanes are an insult to the taxpayers who pay for highways. They're an even greater insult to the drivers who pay never-ending tolls to use those roads, then are told that they can't use part of it while everyone sits in traffic wasting fuel and polluting.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:only 2 general lanes? by McBeer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tha alternative plan MS is arguing against has only two (one each way) lanes for general car use - no wonder they don't want it. Light rail and long range buses are only good if lots of people want to use them. HOV lanes are only good if people can be convinced to carpool. Apparently MS management feels the employees want to drive their own cars to work by themselves. If that's the case, making them idle in the traffic snarls created by the one general lane each way bridge will not only make everyone late to work but also really exacerbate the smog problem.

      Not quite. Most of the MS employees in Seattle ride the Microsoft Connector bus in to work. The existing one carpool lane is more then sufficient to accomodate the MS busses. I live right by the 520 bridge and I'm with MS on this one. More carpool lanes and/or light rail will just increase the time and cost of the project and add little to no benefit. We need a new bridge now.

      --
      Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    3. Re:only 2 general lanes? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, if they are stuck in traffic jams day after day, they may find themselves much more likely to try the train, bus or carpool option

      Hasn't happened yet.

      it's also faster. At least, it's faster in a well-designed transit system.

      Spherical cow. It's all easy if you can postulate away any actual practical limitations. Things like existing residence and employment location patterns ("first, we make everyone live within 5 miles of where they work..."); stuff already in the way of your well-designed transit system ("how many dozens of blocks are you willing to demolish to set up your light rail system?"); and the simple societal preference for individual mobility.

      The U.S. is a big, sprawling country, and the cities are big and sprawling too. That is the result of, and the reinforcement for, the big, sprawling, commute-centric mindset of suburban/exurban America. And 3-hour commutes, $4 per gallon gasoline, and 35,000 traffic fatalities a year haven't changed it yet. If you don't mind, I won't hold my breath.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:only 2 general lanes? by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nudge, nudge. That's the progressive way! Hey, can I ask that they not use my tax money to build HOV lanes, then tell me I can't use them?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:only 2 general lanes? by brainboyz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, many people have enough to do in their lives that they don't have time to deal with someone else's commute schedule. Personally, my life is full enough between exercise, my day job, my side business, and other projects that I couldn't typically pick someone else up for work. You know, I try to live life.

      But, I ride a motorcycle that gets great gas mileage (40+ easy, 50 if I'm careful) in far less space than any car. It also doesn't strain the roads as much and takes far less to build. Why don't you get a motorcycle so we can half the lane size and double the capacity of the freeways w/o increasing the pollution? Stop wasting more resources than me, douchebag.

      See? It works both ways. Until you are completely carbon neutral in all aspects, living in a minimal-volume shelter with common living spaces (you don't NEED your own fridge, stove, or table), and traveling in an all electric vehicle that takes no more room or energy to transport you than absolutely required, you are wasting resources for comfort or convenience; stop playing holier than thou.

  7. Terrible Title & Summary by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:
    While there are still some final design issues that need to be resolved with the City of Seattle, we should not let last-minute objections undermine the hard-won agreements already in place for the rest of the project. Doing so would cause yet more delay, increase the cost to taxpayers, and put this vital transportation and economic corridor at risk. The current bridge is 47 years old, and state engineers warn that it could sink in a major storm or earthquake.

    So its not like Microsoft is against it because they love to emit Carbon Dioxide. In fact, closing the bridge for construction will cause people to go around, emitting more CO2.

    Microsoft is mostly against it because it highly affects their employees in a negative way. It means more lates, or more inconvenience. Will the CO2 offset from more buses balance out the increased amount created during its upgrade? Who knows.

    Bill's Ted talk was actually great. He promoted the design and development of the new Nuclear reactors that burn the 99% of uranium - essentially the old toxic waste that we have sitting around. Yeah, everyone was afraid of nuclear technology partly because of the waste produced, and with modern super computers we've simulated that we can actually burn the waste produced by regular nuclear reactors. We just need to jump on it. Bill Gates goes through how Solar power and Geo power are great alternatives but they aren't as solid, as such they will only work towards extending our deadline to meet the Carbon 0 goal.

    These two events, the Ad and the Ted talk, are totally exclusive and neither are really about the other, and this isn't them butting heads. Bill Gates goes on about how the entire world needs to come together on a new project. This is one company against adding bus lanes to a bridge. Whoever lumped those two together didn't really look at the big picture.

  8. I don't even need RTFA by oldhack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, MS is opposing the redesign because it needs to pump CO2, obviously.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  9. Did the submitter RTFA? by Suiggy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Microsoft isn't opposing the bridge design. They're opposing further delay on starting the bridge project. They're for the bridge redesign, not against it.

    First line in the article.

    Microsoft took out a full-page color ad in the Seattle Times today opposing any further “delay” on replacing the SR-520 bridge

    1. Re:Did the submitter RTFA? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft isn't opposing the bridge design. They're opposing further delay on starting the bridge project. They're for the bridge redesign, not against it.

      Microsoft is opposing a re-redesign of the bridge.
      Mostly because they want it built sooner rather than later.

      Feature creep is how most any type of project can destroy its schedule and end up over budget.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  10. Have you ever travelled on 520? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously, do you even live in Seattle? Do you know what 520 bridge is like? Do you even know all the politics around this bridge redesign? No? Then, STFU!!! This bridge goes through VERY wealthy neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge. These neighborhoods have been dead set against ANY expansion of the bridge and they have been backing any and all candidates with proposals that would delay the contructions of the new bridge. These redesigns have been decades in making, while the bridge is hanging by the thread on every major windstorm. The sucker needs to get replaces ASAP. It does not matter if it is 6 lanes or 8 lanes. It needs to move forward for the good of all people living in the Puget Sound area.

    1. Re:Have you ever travelled on 520? by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Informative

      In addition, mass transit across 520 is going to solve what problem? People are converging at that point from up and down the Eastside and unless you extend the light rail to Bothell, Kirkland, Woodinville, Redmond, Bellevue, etc. etc. you won't have any riders. But none of those cities (with possible exceptions of MS campus in Redmond, and the city of Bellevue) would get anywhere near the volume of ridership to make it worthwhile.

      I've come to the conclusion we are really better off with buses and a few more lanes.

    2. Re:Have you ever travelled on 520? by bmk67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      These redesigns have been decades in making, while the bridge is hanging by the thread on every major windstorm.

      Indeed. The SR-520 bridge is a floating bridge and is nearly 50 years old. It carries far more traffic than it was designed to carry, and in any case, is nearing the end of it's design life.

      To put things in perspective, the Hood Canal Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge) is of similar age, design, construction, and span. The Hood Canal bridge suffered a catastrophic failure during a windstorm in 1979. It was rebuilt and reopened in 1982.

  11. Not Contradictory by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nothing in this is contradictory. Like most people, particularly those with power and wealth, he wants everyone else to do something to reduce carbon emissions while he flies around in his private jet and pumps megawatts into his electro-fortress. See also Al Gore's mansion and The Governator's private jet commute from Malibu to Sacramento. Contrast with Ed Begley Jr, who seems to practice what he preaches -- and is the exception that proves the rule.

    The rich and famous are only required to appear as though they want a better future, or we would rise up and slay them. Good PR does more to protect their aristocracy than making sacrifices -- the PR is all that the serfs know of the nobles.

    1. Re:Not Contradictory by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even worse, his efforts to prevent malaria are likely to result in millions and millions of additional living humans.

      But maybe it all doesn't boil down to any simple calculus.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  12. Re:Population Reduction by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Troll? He wants population planet wide to stabilize and drop some for the good of all. Not ... like slaughtering africans with medicine... Bringing places to the 1st world reduces birth rates. That's a good thing... and exactly what we want to see.

  13. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's just an attempt to spin the story against Microsoft, for no apparent reason

    Did you miss "posted by kdawson"?

  14. How do you mark this whole story as troll? by dreadlord76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft is not opposing transit. Microsoft runs a whole fleet of buses to reduce the number of cars on the road. As many comments indicate, this is about a bridge that desperately needs replacing. As someone who think Seattle is in another dimension, I wonder what Ravenna housing prices would do if 520 fails, and those Microsoft commuters move to Redmond so they can get to work.

  15. So? by legio_noctis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seeing as Bill Gates no longer works at Microsoft, I doubt they see eye-to-eye at all. Nor do they need to, or we to know whether or nether they are.

  16. Very loose correlation. by Xeno+man · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it's pretty much a non story, and I think most agree since nearly every commenter so far hasn't bothered to RTFA and proved it with ignorant comments.

    Basically Bill Gates gives a talk about the environment and says we need to burn hippies for energy (or something with nuclear power, I haven't watched the video yet) and people cheer.
    Microsoft, which Bill Gates has next to nothing to do with anymore, says to the city, stop fucking around and build the bridge you have been planing since forever before the old one falls down, but because some hippies want to make last minute design changes like powering the lights with bicycles (or maybe adding more HOV lanes or something) which would mean redoing a lot of work and added years of delays, somehow makes Microsoft anti environment.

  17. What is it with this 'He no longer works there'? by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Informative

    He is still the largest single shareholder (8%) and a non-executive Chairman of the Board. He's still quite involved with MS.

  18. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    McGinn’s proposal would also introduced further delays. Which is what MS is complaining about.

    I'll bet they don't give a hoot one way or the other about the LRT lanes. But if that bridge goes down for even one day, no matter what it looks like, they lose millions.

  19. This topic is flamebait. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does this indicate that Microsoft isn't green?

    Maybe Microsoft is simply looking at the reality: there is no incentive for people who might cross that bridge to use public transit. People who are able to afford a lengthy daily drive to work are also likely to be able to justify not sitting another 20+ minutes on a bus/train with strangers.

    Also, public transit has shown to do one thing very well in the US: bring criminals from their urban homes to suburbia where they can commit crimes and then hop back on the train in time for dinner.

    Upper-middle-class people do not ride on public transit unless it is very, very clean, safe, and private. (This is partially because train lines seem to typically go from urban downtown to their pleasant neighborhoods, resulting in urban scum coming out to deal drugs and expand their turf in the relatively safe 'burbs.)

    Maybe Microsoft is opposed to the lengthy extensions to the bill proposing public transit because said public transit would then come out of the Redmond tax coffers.

    There's probably close to a half dozen plausible reasons why MS might be opposed to this bridge, and it has nothing to do with how "Green" they are.

    Why don't you call them "Reds" and have McCarthy go after them? (That's what this Green bullshit is becoming - the New McCarthyism.)

    I'm going to go burn some tires.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:This topic is flamebait. by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Upper-middle-class people do not ride on public transit unless it is very, very clean, safe, and private. (This is partially because train lines seem to typically go from urban downtown to their pleasant neighborhoods, resulting in urban scum coming out to deal drugs and expand their turf in the relatively safe 'burbs.)

      Ok, I know this not to be true, not only here in Europe, but in the US as well. I have lived in NYC, and I can tell you that there are *a lot* of upper middle class (and even wealthy) people who use the subway there, and it's not exactly clean, or private. (it's much safer than driving though)

      Pure bullshit. The part about transit bringing criminals to suburbs too, can you point to *any* serious study that supports this?

  20. Re:Bill Gates vs Microsoft by dhavleak · · Score: 2

    That's pretty much it. KDawson has got to be one really sick individual.

    I mean, when I do a web search all I get is articles talking about how Microsoft is doing everything it can to accelerate the plans for the new bridge -- which can only be good for CO2 emissions, especially considering that the construction has been delayed multiple times over literally a decade. When I read TFA on slashdot, it looks like MS is just getting in the way for absolutely no reason.

    Pathetic, kdawson -- absolutely pathetic. You are a really sorry excuse for a person.

  21. The complete situation by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary is unbelievably slanted; whoever tagged this story "troll" was correct. Here is the complete situation; judge for yourself.

    Lake Washington is a tall, skinny lake that's rather deep in the middle. It takes a while to drive around it; if you bicycle around the circumference of the lake, it's about 50 miles total.

    On the west side of the lake, you have a tall, skinny city: Seattle. The biggest city in the state, lots of people live there.

    On the east side of the lake, you have a tall, skinny populated area. But it isn't just one city; it's Bothell, Woodinville, Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, Renton, and a few small ones. Collectively these are known as "the Eastside".

    Because Lake Washington is so deep, an ordinary bridge is impractical. That is why the three longest floating bridges in the world are on Lake Washington: the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (I tend to slip and call it the "floating point bridge") is the one with highway 520, and it is the longest single floating bridge in the world. (The other two are used for I-90 a couple of miles to the south of 520.) By the way, I suspect that one of the reasons we have the longest floating bridges is the fact that the Chittenden Locks in Seattle allow for some control over the water level of Lake Washington; if we have torrential rain, engineers can just open the locks and let the waters drain out of the lake system and lower the water level again to the safe zone for the floating bridges.

    When the 520 bridge was first built, all the action was in Seattle. Not that many people lived on the Eastside, and not that many Seattle people needed to go to the Eastside. But Microsoft and a bunch of other technical companies are on the Eastside, so now many people actually commute from Seattle to the Eastside over the 520 bridge.

    There are rich neighborhoods right on the water, on both sides of the lake. The fabled small city of Medina, where Bill Gates has his famous house, is right by the 520 bridge. The rich folks have been successfully blocking all attempts to upgrade the 520 bridge; as I understand it, their attitude is that they already don't like the car noise, so why would they want more traffic to be able to flow over the bridge? The area has been talking about replacing the 520 bridge for something like 14 years now, and for most of that time the project has been blocked.

    But the 520 bridge really needs to be replaced. If you measure the life of the bridge in terms of how many cars have driven over it, the bridge is way, way past its planned lifetime already. A serious wind storm could sink it. A serious earthquake could sink it. And the consequences for traffic would be epic (not in a good way).

    Right now, all it takes is a Husky football game at the University of Washington, putting extra traffic on the already overloaded bridge, and the whole area is just about paralyzed. Normally the I-90 bridge is fine, but when the 520 gets bad enough and traffic diverts to the other bridge, both bridges can be parking lots. It will already be bad when the 520 bridge is closed for construction of the new bridge; I seriously hope that they can mostly build the new bridge somewhere and float it into place with minimal down time. If the bridge fails in a wind storm, we will be many months, possibly years without any bridge and the traffic will be dire. In short, any further delay in building the bridge is Not A Good Idea.

    Now, the existing bridge is two traffic lanes each way. There is no carpool lane. There is no shoulder. Any time a vehicle stalls, a tow truck gets over there ASAP and pulls it off the bridge, but it still does horrible things to the already horrible traffic. As other posters have noted, the 520 carpool lane disappears right before the bridge, and the westbound neck-down where three lanes go to two lanes is the single most congested piece of road in the whole state.

    So, we have a bridge plan finally that is ready to move ahead. It ha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely