Slashdot Mirror


Protesters Show Up At the Doorstep of Google Self-driving Car Engineer

mpicpp sends this report from Ars Technica: "Protests against tech giants and their impact on the San Francisco Bay Area economy just got personal. According to an anonymous submission on local news site Indybay, an unknown group of protesters targeted a Google engineer best known for helping to develop the company's self-driving car. ... The protest against Levandowski came the same day that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) voted for the first time to take action regulating Google, Facebook, Apple, and a number of other large tech companies that shuttle workers in private, Wi-Fi-enabled buses from the Bay Area to points south in Silicon Valley."

692 comments

  1. Wait so now by dale.furno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being a Luddite is fashionable?

    1. Re:Wait so now by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but being a liberal Democrat is. At least in the Bay area.

    2. Re:Wait so now by DickBreath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Wait so now by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Sorry..Replied to the wrong. :-(

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    4. Re:Wait so now by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      Being a Luddite is fashionable?

      Apparently so. They must have driven themselves, taking such an awful risk, when a self driving car would have been safer.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Wait so now by GameMaster · · Score: 0

      Have you actually read up on the issue? They're not protesting the technology, they're protesting the rising rents in the city due to Google (and other big IT company) employees moving in and commuting to their work outside the city. Do you actually understand what the word "Luddite" means?

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    6. Re:Wait so now by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Never mind, the Ars story seams to specifically be dealing with a nutty fringe group in the issue.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    7. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am and I have nothing to do with unions.

    8. Re:Wait so now by Altus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and that is this guys fault personally and somehow not the fault of the protesters who likely have their own phones and computers and used the same resources to print the very fliers that they used to protest this one guy who is just designing things and is really, in no way, more responsible for the economic state of the world than any of the people standing outside his house.

      If you have a problem with this kind of economic inequality then you have a long journey ahead of you. Bitching about one engineer and the fact that he can cary a baby and check his cell phone at the same time (but what about the LIFE he carries in his HAND!) is sure as shit not going to change any of that.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    9. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's time for those renters to move then. Why would you attack a company's employees because your rent is going up? I didn't attack people living in my Seattle suburb because my rent went up, I move somewhere cheaper.

      These people have a very poor understanding of how to fix their problems and are using mob tactics to try to accomplish what they want. They aren't luddites, but they are very clearly an angry mob without any direction or understanding as to how they can fix their problems.

    10. Re:Wait so now by SiliconSeraph · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Picketing this guys house doesn't solve anything. He's enriching the world with his work. He's not beating child slaves in some African diamond mine, he's not indenturing people to manufacture tennis shoes. These people are doing the most convenient thing possible to act like they care without actually leaving the city or county they live in. The protestors would be better served to use that energy to plant a tree and get over themselves.

    11. Re:Wait so now by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      It seems to be the modern day farmers with pitchforks and torches banging on the scientists doorstep.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    12. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah! How dare those people who are earning money be able to afford rent! Damn it, they should pay even more rent, in a more expensive part of town, so everyone can be poor together!

      Wait, that's right, isn't it?

    13. Re:Wait so now by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      This is a fantastic idea. Picket in front of random people's houses, demanding we return to the gold standard. It will be at least as effective as Occupy.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    14. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why specify the bay area? Being a liberal Democrat is what America is all about.

    15. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He's not beating child slaves in some African diamond mine, he's not indenturing people to manufacture tennis shoes"

      As far as you know...

    16. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, This isn't about being a Luddite. It's about extortion, threats and harassment; it's about being a conspirator and an organized crime gang.

         

    17. Re:Wait so now by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      It never went out of fashion. The difference is there used to be a firewall against fanaticism: upward mobility.

      The Great Recession reduced the median net worth of American Household's by 39%, and 85% of self-identified middle class people say it has become harder to maintain a middle-class lifestyle over the past decade (citation: 2012, Pew Research Center, "Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier: The Lost Decade of the Middle Class"). The Great Recession also wiped out 15 years of growth in the median household income in the US (citation: Wikipedia, 'Household income in the United States',http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States), with the median continuing to drop even after economic growth resumed, although truth be told median household income was stagnant through the first decade of this century.

      If you want to know how politically stable this country is, look at those median numbers. If they drop or stagnate while average incomes rise, that means the mass of people in the country are experiencing economic insecurity, and a certain proportion of those people are apt to be radicalized -- toward both ends of the political spectrum.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Wait so now by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how pro-technology I am, they have valid points about the Congo and rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    19. Re: Wait so now by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Wait a minute, maybe these self driving cars aren't so self driving after all!?

      Everyone, to the pitch forks!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    20. Re:Wait so now by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, the protesters weren't complaining about rent, but about how the engineer "is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control, and automation", that the designer of a condo he wants to build "[have] created military installations, malls, and hospitals", that they are destroying the economy by "growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people"... They talk about how they stalk him in his morning routine and that when he descended the stairs of his home with his baby in his arms, he "appeared in this moment like the robot he admits that he is."

      They also go on some insane rant about mining and that "Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine"...

      These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.

    21. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but being a MINDLESS liberal moronic Democrat is. At least in the Bay area.

    22. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't luddites, but they are very clearly an angry mob without any direction or understanding as to how they can fix their problems.

      In other words, they closely resemble the US Government.

    23. Re:Wait so now by bunratty · · Score: 1

      It's interesting watching election votes come in. When they show maps of how counties are voting, it's generally Democrats in the urban areas and Republicans in the rural areas. So the maps are giant swathes of red (Republican) with small dots of blue (Democrats) tightly packed in large cities. Like in this map for example.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    24. Re:Wait so now by lgw · · Score: 2

      Mostly the housing collapse reduced the average "net worth" of American households, as a good many people had unsustainably inflated home equity.

      Did you know, the average income of a 1%er in 1995 dropped by about 25% by 2005? No, I'm not taling about "the average income of the 1%", I'm talking about the specific people who were 1%ers in 1995. High incomes tend to be unstable, and it's very common for people to spend only a year or two in the top 1% of incomes before the winds of fate change.

      Meanwhile, people become "radicalized" every generation in America, from the Whiskey Rebellion to today. The Great Recession really sucks, and the investment banks have never been held to account for their strong role in creating it (consumer banks were involved, but not really causing the big problems), but don't lay all the world's ills at its doorstep. We're still far better off economically than the 70s!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Wait so now by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      My favorite part of the flyer (surely you bothered to spend enough time reading the flyer before you posted) was the call to action, which included, "Steal from the techies you babysit for."

      HI-larious!

    26. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Luddite is fashionable?

      Apparently so. They must have driven themselves, taking such an awful risk, when a self driving car would have been safer.

      Rumours that they all arrived in a bus hired by Microsoft have yet to be substantiated.....

    27. Re:Wait so now by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Intelligent people tend to abandon farms and rural areas and move to the cities, where there is more intellectual stimulation.

      False. Intelligent people prefer independence and elbow room. The "intellectual stimulation" of an overly-dense metropolis is a cacophony of self-important masses clamoring for attention.

    28. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be arming myself, heavily.

      People like these protesters don't seem to have a very firm grasp of reality so it's hard to know how long it will take before they resort to killing to get their own way....

    29. Re:Wait so now by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's been so for a while. People stalk researchers working on life-savng drugs, threaten to kill a woman with cancer who thanks the people who work on saving her life and so on.

      Being a crazy lunatic is fashionable in certain circles. It's quite sad really.

    30. Re:Wait so now by LWATCDR · · Score: 0

      It is SF. If you are not protesting something you are not cool.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    31. Re:Wait so now by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      False. Intelligent people enjoy Pink Floyd and the Backstreet Boys, drive a 1982 white Honda Prelude, have two cats and one dog and live in a small but tidy flat in Newcastle upon Tyne.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    32. Re:Wait so now by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Liberals vary a lot, especially by region. The ones on the West Coast generally don't care much about unions; that's the northeast and Rust Belt ones.

    33. Re:Wait so now by cusco · · Score: 1

      So now we know what that 'Mission Accomplished' banner really was about.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    34. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were false, then why do people end up congregating in that way? Your just expressing an opinion. Some hate crowds some don't. You obviously don't.

    35. Re:Wait so now by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      that they are destroying the economy by "growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people"

      Shades of Wickard v. Filburn! People are getting upset that someone is growing their own food!

      Hope those protesters don't find out about farmers...they'd prolly go totally apeshit to know that there are people who make a living growing their own food....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:Wait so now by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't go blaming liberal democrats.
      I am a liberal democrat, and I think SFMTA is in the wrong, and that these protesters are idiotic.

      Stop letting echo chambers, and shit stirrers cause you to think along such simple lines.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    37. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a liberal democrat, and I think SFMTA is in the wrong, and that these protesters are idiotic

      If you think they're wrong, why you never go protest against them ??

    38. Re:Wait so now by triffid_98 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Great Recession really sucks, and the investment banks have never been held to account for their strong role in creating it [...], but don't lay all the world's ills at its doorstep. We're still far better off economically than the 70s!

      In spite of a far more educated workforce I have serious doubts that that's true.

      Adjusted for inflation, the median household income in 1975? $45,788
      The median household income in 2012? $51,017

      But wait you (might) say. That means we're better off now....except for one small detail. We're measuring household income.

      In the 1970's that was (generally) one persons income, in 2012 that's two people's income. In terms of physical goods I think we compare quite favorably, but factoring in things like housing, energy and food? Not so much.

      REFERENCE http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

    39. Re:Wait so now by geekoid · · Score: 1

      False -smart people don't believe all smart people do the same thing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    40. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say that the guy with "the simple life" isn't intelligent?
      Could you run a farm?

    41. Re:Wait so now by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you understand, that living in the first world, you are likely richer than 90% if not 99% of the rest of the population? How much of your wealth are you willing to give up in the name of inequality?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    42. Re:Wait so now by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Historically, high earners, move into, and then out of cities, it cycles on a generation bases. Currently high earner, in general, are moving into cities.

      Nothing I said should be taken to imply the intelligent of high earners.

      Smart people research shit before saying it online.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    43. Re:Wait so now by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people enjoy Pink Floyd and the Backstreet Boys,

      WTF? No one enjoys those things.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    44. Re:Wait so now by sexconker · · Score: 2

      False -smart people don't believe all smart people do the same thing.

      False. Intelligent people know that on the whole, human behavior is very predictable and homogeneous. Only idiots believe they're special snowflakes.

    45. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who else would be opposed to self driving cars?

      I'll give you a hint: The protesters drove all the way from Seattle and/or Cupertino. Good thing they were collecting pay for the drive...

    46. Re:Wait so now by sexconker · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If that were false, then why do people end up congregating in that way? Your just expressing an opinion. Some hate crowds some don't. You obviously don't.

      Because most people are incapable of providing for themselves and so cluster around established infrastructure for food, water, shelter, power, clothing, transportation, etc. Said infrastructure is expensive - time, money, space, labor, materials, etc. - so it makes sense for the infrastructure to be clustered. The dependent people follow the infrastructure.

      Independent people are more likely to live away from the masses, choose property with other criteria as a priority (view, weather, etc.) This is why the wealthy live in gated communities, try to prevent the public from accessing the beach in front of their house, live in the hills outside the cities, etc. They want to get away from the masses of poor, stupid, ugly, dirty, sick, etc. people. This is why royalty and titled people built castles and moats. It's why artists live cloistered lives. It's why the religious figures, the rabbis, the wise men, the medicine men, etc. had a space to themselves and people trekked to them for guidance and assistance.

      This has been true for all of human history. The intelligent seek to shed the husk of ineptitude that is the rest of humanity. Of course, this doesn't mean some dumb people don't do the same thing, or that everyone with the means to live on a private island is intelligent (often they're merely benefiting from the legacy of someone who was). But the general drive of the intelligent is separation, privacy, and introspection. Extroversion is the noise of the insipid masses. A desire to cluster in numbers is the behavior of prey animals. Desire for attention is a sign of insecurity.

      And I fucking hate crowds.

    47. Re:Wait so now by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      So the justification for showing up at car engineer's house to protest is that Nixon closed the gold window 43 years ago?

      Sounds like California's mental health problems are worse than we thought.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    48. Re:Wait so now by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      They're upset that employers who pay living wages are moving into their area? Oh wait, that's right, $15 is a "living wage" and these companies are paying more than that. So tech workers are being paid too much, fast food workers are being paid too little, and what we really need is everyone making the same money regardless of what they do?

      Why don't these hippies go join a little commune where they can all be equal* together?

      *with some Type A people being more equal than others

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    49. Re:Wait so now by Loki_1929 · · Score: 0

      These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.

      And arm myself with some pretty hefty firepower. Oh wait, in California, one isn't allowed to protect themselves legally. One may, however, die legally at the hands of an angry, irrational mob who thinks robots are taking over the world.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    50. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's enriching the world with his work. He's not beating child slaves in some African diamond mine, he's not indenturing people to manufacture tennis shoes.

      Yeah, that was his first mistake. None of the other things you mentioned actually make a difference. Enriching the world, on the other hand, upsets the status quo.

    51. Re:Wait so now by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, we don't have 10% inflation nor gas lines. And remember houses are bigger now - the ratio of rooms to people in houses has doubled, I think, with it becoming rare for children to share a bedroom. There's also buying power, which inflation adjusting only loosely accounts for. In terms of anything computerized, or just about anything medical, we have miracles by 70s standards. SO I'd argue that physical goods, entertainment, housing, and energy are all better now, and food is no worse, plus we have a stable currency for the moment. Plus it's quite common for a middle class family to have a maid and a gardener now (much of the second persons income goes to replace the work that second person once did in the home, naturally enough).

      Remember, money us just the intermediary - for the most part the stuff (goods and services) we have is the stuff we collectively produce, and we produce far more than we did 40 years ago.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? No one enjoys those things.

      Well of course YOU would say that!

    53. Re:Wait so now by epyT-R · · Score: 1, Troll

      Not wanting to live in a cesspool of feral idiots is not classism or racism..

    54. Re:Wait so now by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Nobody's allowed to go over 75 mph either.

    55. Re:Wait so now by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      This isn't about being a Luddite, it's about pointing out the economic disparity at play in the world.

      Baloney. All of these people, both protesters and Googlers, are in the economic top 10% of America. Otherwise they would have never been able to afford to live in SF in the first place. This is about the rich whining that someone is slightly richer.

    56. Re:Wait so now by chuckinator · · Score: 2

      88 mph is illegal? GREAT SCOTT!

    57. Re:Wait so now by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Nobody? Come now... I'm sure exceptions can be made if you're say... a cop or a politician?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    58. Re:Wait so now by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do know that lots of gold is mined in the USA.

      In 2012 the United States produced 230 tonnes of gold, making it the third-largest gold-producing nation, behind China and Australia. South Africa (that's actually a country) is 5th, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo isn't even in the top 10.

      Most gold is used for jewelry, not electronics, so go protest a freaking jeweler.

    59. Re:Wait so now by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing how that's a point. If we import it, we don't have enough. That we mine our own may at least mean it's mined under more human working conditions (though sometimes I'm not so sure about that in America, where workers get the least sickdays and shitty benefits and somehow rail against the very concept of unions to protect their interests), but if we are importing it, our demand is indeed so great that it reaches wherever we buy it from. Is some of that from Congo? Hell if I actually know. Kinda doubt you do either. ;)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    60. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankenstein?

    61. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people left the usa in search of a better life ....

    62. Re:Wait so now by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Or any of the other millions of people running 85 down the 101 every day.

    63. Re:Wait so now by swalve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. My parents and all their cousins grew up in houses with about 100 sq feet per person. Three bedrooms, 7 kids, etc. Sure, they were able to live on dad's salary, but mom's entire day was spent toiling so they could make it work. If you want to live like they did in the 70s (and 60s and 50s), you certainly can on one income. But it won't be pretty, because it wasn't pretty then either. We have two income households because we have greater expectations for standards of living.

    64. Re:Wait so now by Skreems · · Score: 0

      Not all cities are Detroit. Many of them are actually quite nice.

      Regarding the overall claim that "smart people don't live in the city", that's flat-out ridiculous. Cities provide a much greater wealth of quality and diversity in food, entertainment, and culture than the suburbs or rural areas. You could get that by living out in the burbs and driving to the city, but some people are smart enough to value their time for more than sitting in traffic. I guess you could go the other way and do nothing but stay home and watch TV, but I think that kind of disqualifies you from the "intelligent" part we mentioned earlier.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    65. Re:Wait so now by floobedy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they have valid points about the Congo and rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.

      The protesters certainly do not have valid points. The rising rents in the SF Bay Area are caused by fixed supply despite growing demand, which in turn is caused by the relentless opposition to constructing any new urban housing there.

      The far left in the SF Bay Area has fought tooth and nail, for decades, to disallow any dense urban housing construction. That is why rents are increasing. Demand increases every year while supply is fixed.

      From the protesters' flier:

      Levandowski is now making his contribution to the further sterilization and gentrification of Downtown Berkeley and Shattuck Avenue [by sponsoring new condominium buildings]. The proposed project is a testament to the arrogance, disconnection, and luxury of the ruling class. Growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people allows them, somehow...

      Here the protesters will not allow the construction of new urban housing. When rents continue to go up, which is what the protesters are causing by their own actions, they will complain again that rents are too high.

      The protesters are causing additional carbon emissions and environmental destruction. If they successfully prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then obviously that will force those people to live in suburban housing (because people don't protest new construction there), and suburban housing has vastly worse carbon emissions that urban.

      Newsflash: if you prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then that doesn't cause the potential occupants just to disappear magically. Instead, it causes them to live in suburban housing instead, which is far worse for the environment in every regard. Suburban residents usually have triple the carbon emissions or more, of urban residents.

      Furthermore, if the protesters manage to shut down the bus (!?), then obviously that will force some people to drive which will contribute to the gridlock on the 101, and will cause thousands of cars on the gridlocked 101 to idle even longer during their travels.

      valid points about the Congo

      If you care about the Congo, as the protesters claim to do, then you should send part of your money as charity to the Congo. It does not help the people there, to boycott their only product and to boycott the only major export from the entire country. It causes economic devastation to a country to prevent its exports. That is why a blockade on exports is forbidden by the UN as an international crime.

      If exports are exploitation, then the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a big favor by blockading the ports at the Gaza strip. It is preventing the palestinians from being "exploited" by selling what they have on the international market.

      It's nice of you to try to find something positive about the protesters. However, in my opinion, the protesters are just stupid. What they are doing is silly, poorly thought out, unintentionally destructive, and it causes precisely the problems which they are trying to cure.

    66. Re:Wait so now by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Independent people are more likely to live away from the masses, choose property with other criteria as a priority (view, weather, etc.) This is why the wealthy live in gated communities, try to prevent the public from accessing the beach in front of their house, live in the hills outside the cities, etc. They want to get away from the masses of poor, stupid, ugly, dirty, sick, etc. people. This is why royalty and titled people built castles and moats. It's why artists live cloistered lives. It's why the religious figures, the rabbis, the wise men, the medicine men, etc. had a space to themselves and people trekked to them for guidance and assistance.

      The people you describe are not independent, they are actually hyper-dependent.

      Without their subjects to bring them offerings, they have nothing.

      This has been true for all of human history. The intelligent seek to shed the husk of ineptitude that is the rest of humanity.

      The intelligent seek like-minded people.

      For all the historical glory the lone inventor gets, the vast majority of progress comes from teams of people working together.

    67. Re:Wait so now by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      False -smart people don't believe all smart people do the same thing.

      Then obviously, some smart people might believe that.

    68. Re:Wait so now by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Those are people not being caught. No doubt you do see some of them pulled over from time to time, just not all of them because there are so many. The difference is that a cop or a politician can do it while they're the only car on a road lined on both sides with cops running speed traps. I find that inherently wrong.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    69. Re:Wait so now by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I find that inherently unlikely.

    70. Re:Wait so now by floobedy · · Score: 2

      Do you understand, that living in the first world, you are likely richer than 90% if not 99% of the rest of the population? How much of your wealth are you willing to give up in the name of inequality?

      What does that have to do with it? The protesters are also richer than 99% of the rest of the population, and their actions are doing nothing to help poor people. Instead of giving their time or money to third world causes, or encouraging techies to give some of their money to such causes, the protesters wish to boycott the only export of the Congo (gold), while preventing new urban housing development and thereby forcing increased surburbanization and increased co2 emissions.

      What the protesters primarily want is reduced rent for themselves. Their main complaint is that rents are too high, even though they cause the problem by preventing the construction of urban housing. The protesters are spoiled, wealthy first worlders, just like the techies, except they cause the problems they complain about and are harming the poor (or trying to harm them).

    71. Re:Wait so now by floobedy · · Score: 1

      When you create conditions in the rest of the world such that we give them pieces of paper, and they are willing to die trying to get something to sell for those pieces of paper... we have some social responsibility... The US exports paper promises of ... (well, nothing actually, Nixon closed the Gold window in 1971) paper, and over throws any resource rich country that wants to sell for some other paper, or... gasp... actual Gold.

      Except those pieces of paper you talk about, can be used to buy medicine and food. Those pieces of paper can be used to pay for imports and thereby gives those countries access to things like capital equipment and medicine.

      Do we really want to stop the flow of money ("pieces of paper") to the third world?

      We've got a gun to the heads of the rest of humanity....

      Poor people want money ("pieces of paper") because we have a gun to their heads?

      is that enough of a rant to show it's not about the technology.... its the economics?

      The protesters are doing nothing to help people in the third world. Their main action has been to protest the bus. If they succeed in shutting down the buses between San Francisco and silicon valley, then it won't help people in the third world at all.

      In fact, it doesn't seem like the protesters are even trying to help people in the third world. Most of what they are doing is trying to reduce rent for themselves by kicking out other people.

    72. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't a typical family today that would go back to 1975. Not only less money, but way less nice stuff. heart attacks had 40% death rate (what, 5% today), cancer was an almost certain death sentence. No internet. 3 TV channels.

      Food today is very cheap. Energy and housing is about the same.

      Go look at Elvis' perfectly preserved house from the 1970's. If you walke inot that house today, you'd figure a very poor family lived there. But it was the home of choice for a multimillionaire from the 1970's. the kitchen was tiny, crap formica (no granite). All the furniture was crap (no ikea). Just miserable stuff.

    73. Re:Wait so now by anagama · · Score: 1

      I'm going to quibble.

      Suburbia is a desert pock marked with strip malls. There's no hope.

      Cities offer a great many human made stimuli that can be very rewarding and intellectually stimulating for the right person.

      Rural areas offer a great many non-human made stimuli that can be very rewarding and intellectually stimulating for the right person.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    74. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the protest materials put out by the organizer and the arguments are clearly neo-Luddite ones. It was basically a warmed over bit of the Unabomber Manifesto with lots of tech paranoia and a bit of Marxist commentary on automation thrown in there for good measure.

    75. Re:Wait so now by floobedy · · Score: 2

      It is SF. If you are not protesting something you are not cool.

      It's also cool if your protest is hysterical, pointless, stupid, irrational, and likely to accomplish nothing. It's even more cool if your protest causes exactly the problems you complain about, for example, by protesting new urban housing construction and then complaining about insufficient places to live and increased rents. Or, protesting the bus and then complaining about the environment.

      When I was a child taking the school bus in San Francisco, ACT UP protested what they perceived as insufficient AIDS research by laying down in the roadway in front of our school bus. I didn't mind; I wasn't eager to go to school. However it certainly didn't increase AIDS funding. As a child, I didn't start researching AIDS right away while blocked on the bus.

      Instead of doing that, they could have spent the same time helping AIDS patients, or working, and then giving the money to AIDS research charities. But that would have actually helped.

      These people in the SF Bay area don't really want to help anyone, because they never do anything that would help anyone. What they want is a random, hysterical outburst against someone picked at random.

    76. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligent people don't make sweeping abstract generalizations about entire groups of people.

    77. Re:Wait so now by anagama · · Score: 1

      One good thing about 10% inflation -- your mortgage payment quickly becomes laughably light.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    78. Re:Wait so now by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The protesters are part of the elite as well, they just won't acknowledge it. None of them are working in the pit mines either even though they cite this as one of the failings of the Google employee.

      This is basically just Bezerkeley. Students show up full of idealism, with a great education prepared for them with other people's money, and then in some cases that gets warped into an ultra radical mindset. Even if their ideals are good they hurt their own cause through misguided actions and failing to think things through. Nothing they are doing will help the people they think they are supporting.

    79. Re: Wait so now by Kaenneth · · Score: 1, Funny

      They are actually remote controlled by drivers in India and China, usually children, their parents will be shot if they get into an accident.

    80. Re:Wait so now by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Also the one of the legal principles the feds use to control marijuana.

    81. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People tend to believe they are more intelligent than other people because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you really want to know if you are intelligent, find something that other people agree with which you do not...then understand it enough to defend their point of view.

    82. Re:Wait so now by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      Intelligent and intellectual are NOT the same things! There are countless intelligent people working on farms, and countless stupid people who attend intellectual events in cities.

      Being on a farm is essentially owning and operating a small business, you don't just go out and mindlessly work the soil, you have to know accounting, business, science, and engineering, develop a network of customers and suppliers, and so forth. These are every bit as smart as the entrepreneurs that intellectuals fawn over like demigods.

      And guess what, you get get intellectual stimulation as well on the farm! There is no iron curtain that prevents arts from leaving the cities or hicks from entering. I know many ranchers and farmers who do go and visit art museums, attend players, and listen to music concerts. I also know many hipsters who claim they moved to the city because of all the cultural activities who in reality just hang out at clubs instead of museums.

      Stop being a bigot please, it ruins any legitimacy you might have in your arguments.

    83. Re:Wait so now by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      we didn't have double digit inflation or gas rationing for the entire decade either. The truth is, real income per capita has not increased since the 1970's. Wealth has increased, GDP has increased (dramatically) but the distribution has been skewed such that working class people haven't seen any increase at all. There seems to be a disconnect on this site (being tech oriented) folks working in IT seeming to have this notion that because they can get livable wages pretty easily, the same holds for everyone else. This is not true. We are a minority in the economy -- there are far more people working in service/retail/construction/manufacturing than IT. This arrogant line of thinking comes off as "herpa derpa, stop being poor, get a real job"

      Silly n=1 example. My father worked as a janitor at SeaTac in the 70's while attending UW* -- his wage using 2006 dollars would have been around $17 an hour. Not a ton, but definitely livable.

      *at that time you could go to a state school on a night job, even one as low-paying as a janitor. Do you really mean to tell me the economic prospects in america are far better now, than they were?

    84. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's enriching the world with his work.

      So you say..

      If you acknowledge the likely social ramifications and technological limitations of such devices, then no, he is helping to create a future dystopia. What people are doing to others in diamond mines is irrelevant. While I don't agree with their methods, these protesters do have a point, both about the safety of these cars, and how toxic they'll be to a society already ruled by paranoid delusionals.

    85. Re:Wait so now by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      You bet it does.. it takes power away from the owner/driver, and places it in the hands of a corporation and/or the state. Considering the paranoid delusional behavior already shown by our dear leaders, fuck that.

    86. Re:Wait so now by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Why don't the googlers just move into the Tenderloin. It's due for some improvement :)

    87. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're misguided. Protest the landlords that jacked up the rents to fleece the Google employees. Protest the homeowners that tried to get well above what they paid for their home because Google employees could afford to pay it. Every Google employee would rather pay less in rent/mortgage too. It's not Google's fault that they pay well. And it's not the fault of Google employees that they get paid well.

      If rents and home prices are the problem, address the problem and stop harassing the people who are also being ripped off by unreasonably-high housing prices. Of course addressing the problem means removing the impediments that keep developers from creating new housing, but most of the protestors don't want that because it makes their city uglier.

    88. Re:Wait so now by mishehu · · Score: 1

      It's only slightly illegal in parts of Texas. :-)

    89. Re:Wait so now by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're a rich google engineer my advice is not to arm yourself, which is fraught with various legalities, but instead to hire armed security.

    90. Re: Wait so now by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I think it is a lot like Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut. (*spoilers ahead) Sure they're going to die in the end, but their struggle gives their lives purpose. They can't fix their problems, the poor aren't going to have a place to live near the bay. They're going to get pushed farther and farther east until they live in Sac.

      People say they should move, but miss the point; they did move, they did choose their place to live, and it is being taken away from them.

      Only they can choose what is more important, their lives or their neighborhoods. I don't know these freaks, and I don't live in their neighborhoods, so for me it is just the latest video entertainment from California. I'm hoping for a full action flick with armed security and a charging mass of drunks attempting to use Pabst as molotov cocktails. Maybe a neighboring celebrity throwing rooftop vegetables when their gate is breached, right before the security tower opens up (like in that Somali pirate video)

    91. Re:Wait so now by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You seem a little full of propaganda. Gentrification is not a process where the landlords go out of business unless they raise rents. That's just LOL funny because it is so daft. The way it works, the landlords are making huge windfall profits because land they bought when it was slums are now trendy neighborhoods.

      If they "moved everything back out" rents would revert to what they were before gentrification; fairly high rents normal in a big city. They would still be big city landlords making lots of money. It isn't "losing money" to make less than you would have made if the world was different. That isn't what it means to "make" or "lose" money. It is normal for the landlords to want to make as much as they can, but that doesn't mean that they're losing money if they're not making the most they can imagine making. That is just as idiotic as thinking they would be happy making the least they ever made. It is the same "brain-dead [idiocy]" just flipped around backwards.

      If the world stays the same, as expected, and gentrification continues (at the rate chosen by the liberals in SF, btw; don't forget that the protesters here are anti-liberal) then that is the world that these landlords live in, and they get to keep making windfall profits. And if the pace of gentrification slows because the community decides to place more value on traditional neighborhoods, then that will be the world the landlords live in, and they will continue making big city landlord money. Notice that there is no "losing money" going on in these things, or anybody taking anything from the landlords. Or, in the case where they make the most money, is there are sign that the money they're making is because of their own work; they are certainly not the cause of gentrification.

      These are just basic facts and characteristics of the situation. It is normal to choose your own opinions, and to draw your own conclusions, and to have your own values; but not your own facts.

    92. Re:Wait so now by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, actually that isn't what they want at all. They don't want to everyone to be poor together. They just want to keep being poor in the same neighborhoods they grew up being poor in. And they sure don't want to do it together with the rich bastards from google; that is their basic complaint, rich people moving into their neighborhoods.

      They want the rich people to keep being rich wherever they were being rich before they moved into a formerly poor neighborhood. The basic problem with that is that that would require the rich to live in increasingly high density neighborhoods, like the poor have to. The rich don't want to live in close proximity, even to other rich people. And they have enough money to buy the property and make those decisions for everybody.

      I'm not from Cali, but if I was told the old place I could afford to live was Sacramento and that I should consider taking the greyhound bus to work in the City every morning, I might just go on a crazy riot spree too. Or move to the woods and starve on berries.

    93. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its true more women earn incomes now.
      However, its also true that the percentage of single-parent households is much greater now than in the 70s. This is due to a higher divorce rate now vs the 70s.

      So your comment that "in 2012 that's two peoples income" is not really true.

      Its difficult to compare current conditions to past conditions using that statistic

    94. Re: Wait so now by CTU · · Score: 1

      LOL so sad, yet true

    95. Re:Wait so now by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      hire armed security.

      Hire? I think you mean 'build'.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    96. Re:Wait so now by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Well, they did just buy an advanced military robot manufacturer...

    97. Re:Wait so now by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What you're doing here is interesting. You've created a basket of goods, and argued that those things are cheaper for a given quality. And it's an important point that you *can* do this -- but it's tricky.

      Take Elvis' house. Elvis was rich, but he was not a cultural sophisticate, except possibly when it came to music. I can point to counter-examples. I once worked in a non-profit that was chock full of scions of elite Boston families -- Forbes's, Cabots, Lowells, etc. These are people whose ancestors made fortunes in the 1700s and handed it down generation to generation, and patterned their consumption patterns on those of the English aristocracy. Their homes aren't large or flashy, but they're unmistakably old money, and almost couldn't be reproduced at any price today. Everything is old, handmade and of fabulous quality, selected to be handed down to the next generation.

      Now that's an extreme example (as extreme as Elvis's house), but it shows there's a flip side the the "everything's cheaper" argument. Everything *is* cheaper, not only in the sense of price, but in the sense of durability and serviceability (with a few exceptions like autos). I'm 53 years old, and there's been a shift in the very concept of quality over my lifetime that makes comparisons tricky, a shift from use-centered quality to sales-centric quality. Look at the original IBM PC-XT, obviously a ridiculously underpowered by today's standards, but focus on the build quality for a moment. It's almost exotic by today's standards, and it's built to last for ten years or more, to be serviced and upgraded. In comparison the smartphone I carry is incomparably more powerful, it is designed to be thrown away when it's non-replaceable li-ion battery starts to flag after about two years.

      There's been a shift in the way we live our lives, and it's something of a mixed bag. We have to buy stuff differently now, because it's all designed with a very short service life (again except for cars, which are a huge bright spot). I can fill my house with attractive Ikea furniture at a bargain price, and it'll make my Brahmin friends' hand crafted mahogany stuff look dowdy in comparison -- but I'll have to replace most of it in five years, and they'll pass their dining room set down to yet another generation of descendants.

      A lot of our enhanced buying power comes at the cost of getting on the replacement treadmill. I bought a $400 flat screen HDTV two years ago, and I just replaced it with another $400 flat screen HDTV. Meanwhile the 1970s Sony Trinitron in the spare bedroom keeps going. The point is that comparing what you could buy in 1970s to today is complicated, because our notion of quality has changed to one based on the assumption that stuff is disposable.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    98. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand. The problem with a low volume of property isn't so much tied to rich people being misanthropic as San Francisco's horrible housing situation. In the City, they're apparently terrified to build any bigger residential structures, so housing gets more and more scarce.

    99. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not help 50% of California is locked up as preserved land by the State and or the Feds. With 1/2 of all land off-limits, it effectively doubles what the market rate should be for real-estate.

    100. Re:Wait so now by N1AK · · Score: 1

      False. Intelligent people

      False. Most intelligent people are smart enough to know that you can't judge intelligence based on where someone lives or the individual activities they enjoy.

    101. Re:Wait so now by N1AK · · Score: 1

      These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.

      This. Whether there are some legitimate issues with what the firm he works for does or not, these protesters are way out there in their views. The only thing this guy could do to stop them would be quit working for tech firms (if he moved to another then they'd blame him for everything, nonsensical bs included, that they think that firm does.

      If I was his boss or anyone senior at google then I'd hire a couple of investigators, collect all the information I could and then ruin a handful of the protesters with court fees for whatever civil or criminal charges I could accuse them of without risking a summary judgement against me.

    102. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Luddite is fashionable?

      What's even more surprising is, that they are doing so in order to push a communistic agenda. It is a surprise that in USA, there are people so openly pushing a communistic agenda. For many years USA has seen the word communism as invective. That is so profound, that it seems impossible to have a rational conversation about what the word even means. I am not sure if supporters of communism in USA have invented a new word for communism yet. I sure don't expect any of those protesters to openly label themselves as communists.

    103. Re:Wait so now by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Intelligent people enjoy Pink Floyd and the Backstreet Boys,

      WTF? No one enjoys those things.

      Well. I don't even know who the Backstreet Boys are but I confirm that intelligent people like Pink Floyd (although The Wall leaves me cold).

    104. Re:Wait so now by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      Not wanting to live in a cesspool of feral idiots is not classism or racism..

      That's why most sane people don't want to live in "gated communities", which are perfectly described as "cesspools of feral idiots".

    105. Re:Wait so now by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      Except that while they bought the property when the area was a slum, in order to attract the higher income tenants they would have to put money into the building. Said money most likely wasn't spare change they had lying around so those improvements would be financed so if the neighborhood did revert back to low income after a new round of urban flight the new residents wouldn't be able to pay the rent required by the landlord to cover the debt he incurred sprucing the place up.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    106. Re:Wait so now by Xest · · Score: 1

      The problem is these people aren't really protesting because of inequality or anything like that, that's just how they justify it to themselves.

      These people are protesting because of jealousy, and that's why they're targeting someone successful, and smart.

      We're talking about people who have seemingly lived all or most their lives in one of the most successful cities for opportunity in the whole world, yet failed to take advantage of those opportunities such that it would allow them to keep pace with inflation there. These people have let opportunity pass them by, and now they want someone to blame, and who better than people who have come along and taken up the opportunities that they let pass them by?

    107. Re:Wait so now by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Stupid Hippies! Sheesh.
      Maybe theyll protest Rice-a-Roni next, or the color blue for not being green enough.
      Need more Thinktivists and far fewer activists. Trendy dumbasses, will do whatever the herd does. Whats new?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    108. Re:Wait so now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You forgot to look at the cost of living, which has also gone up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    109. Re:Wait so now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I note the careful lack of detail in your post design to hide any hint as to why people might object to this research.

      I have a condition that was discovered by a German who went on to use Jews in medical experiments during WW2. Fortunately his work on my condition was done before that began, but I can understand why people wanted to stop him even though his research helped other people.

      Without any context it is impossible to know if the researchers you mention fit into this category. I have a feeling they may be using animals for experimentation, and note that animal protection laws in the US are rather weak compared with most of the EU. Not saying that justifies death threats, but how can we possibly make any kind of judgement?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    110. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's cool, you can judge people who send anonymous death threats to cancer patients merely because the chemotherapy drugs were tested on animals. This current fad of never passing a moral judgement on anyone is starting to get out of hand.

    111. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that land isn't in the frisco metropolitan area, so it's not exactly relevant; people who want to live in SF don't want to live in a new exurban development that used to belong to the parks service

    112. Re:Wait so now by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It does not help the people there, to boycott their only product and to boycott the only major export from the entire country. It causes economic devastation to a country to prevent its exports.

      Which is still better than letting said exports fund local warlords' reigns of terror. It absolutely helps people to ensure that whoever keeps stamping their boot on their face can't afford heavier ones.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    113. Re:Wait so now by Kleebner · · Score: 1

      that land isn't in the frisco metropolitan area, so it's not exactly relevant; people who want to live in SF don't want to live in a new exurban development that used to belong to the parks service

      Oh yes it is. The Bay Area has huge portions of it locked off from development through "open space" laws.

    114. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely.

    115. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of this little trope. It's a nice assumption at face value, but you need to stop pretending as if America's actually a meritocracy. There are more variables at play than "hard work and determination". A percentage of the people in this community may fit your description, but your demonization of them is precisely the problem with the mindset of America.

    116. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you make the assumption that equality requires re-distribution? This seems to a common error.

    117. Re:Wait so now by Earache65 · · Score: 1

      Release the hounds!!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    118. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of how pro-technology I am, they have valid points about...rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.

      Oh bullshit. In every other part of the country this would be considered a good thing. When your property value goes up, homeowners benefit. Sure no one likes their rent going up, but if you have a community that is exclusively rental-only there's something wrong there. Someone has to own those buildings, therefore someone is profiting and has to think this is a good thing.

      Sure, I'd love to have a luxury apartment in a high-brow neighborhood, but fuck you if you think it's your right. Go out and get a better paying job or move somewhere cheaper like the rest of the fucking country has to do. Seriously, fuck you, Berkeley.

      And as to the shuttle buses... People bitching about them using public property for pickups? Why the fuck not? That's what public spaces are for: the use of the people. They're doing a public service by helping to alleviate traffic, reduce polution, and help their employees. Why the fuck would people be up in arms about this except for pure jealousy?

    119. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA exports gold, too. So now your homework is to go figure out why the USA imports gold AND exports gold.

    120. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smithers, release the robotic Simmons.

    121. Re:Wait so now by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well that is how I feel about a lot of "activists" they often seem to me to be more interested in a display than actually helping.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    122. Re:Wait so now by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      All other Floyd > Dark Side. And the Wall has awesome narative structure and coherence. My favorite track from it is actuall "One of My Turns" for its crazy drop.

    123. Re:Wait so now by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite. Why was an Engineer for driverless car targeted for a protest?

    124. Re:Wait so now by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Regarding the overall claim that "smart people don't live in the city", that's flat-out ridiculous. Cities provide a much greater wealth of quality and diversity in food, entertainment, and culture than the suburbs or rural areas. You could get that by living out in the burbs and driving to the city, but some people are smart enough to value their time for more than sitting in traffic. I guess you could go the other way and do nothing but stay home and watch TV, but I think that kind of disqualifies you from the "intelligent" part we mentioned earlier.

      Yeah cities are awesome, that is for sure. That is why I like to live near, not in, one. Driving to the city doesn't require sitting in traffic when you are going for food or a show. Traffic happens when people are going to work. I prefer not to work in the city either. It sucks on so many levels. The drive, the lack of parking, or if you take public transportation, the lack of options and the increase in time spent trying to get to work, the lack of places to eat (odd how the eating places are nowhere near the working places), the tiny cubes due to the high cost per square foot of commercial space, the lack of windows, and if there are windows, the lack of view of anything other than the next building.
      No thanks, I'll live in the suburbs, work in the suburbs, and go to the occasional show or dinner in the city. Matter of fact, I don't think I have even gone into the city in the last year and I don't feel I have missed anything.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    125. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so sure. You keep voting for Pelosi and she is all about unions among other crazy things.

    126. Re:Wait so now by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      You are confusing opposing *luxury* versions of products with opposing all versions of those products.

      The problem isn't the building of new condos; the problem is they're building condos the people already living there won't be able to afford. The problem isn't that Google and others have buses, the problem is that they're using exclusive private luxury buses that aren't available to anybody else, which again helps push out the people already living there.

      Their problem isn't new people moving in; their problem is new people *forcing the existing residents out.*

    127. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You yourself may be a liberal democrat and that's fine, but it's your fellow liberal democrats aka radical marxist leftists that have driven the political and ideological agenda in the SFB Area for decades and this is what they have wrought. They brought this on themselves and their idiocy has been on display for a long time. They have stymied construction and development for years. They have allowed urban decay to settle in and along with that decay they have favored the downtrodden and the unwashed as a result of it. The fact that the backlash against real progress not their foolish political progress is only a testament to the asinine world view these 'protesters' actually display.

      Blame your political and social ideology. Don't get defensive because you think you are being attacked. You aren't, but rather the ideology you and your fellow LD's hold dear. It's a fail. A giant epic fail.

    128. Re:Wait so now by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how pro-technology I am, they have valid points about the Congo and rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.

      did you read their closing argument?

      "We are the counterforce and you might be too. Disengage from the capitalist economy to the best of your ability. Create autonomous areas where the laws and rituals of capitalism are ignored. Do not look back at the flickering lights. Develop ties with your neighbors. Defend the land. Use your position in society—whether as a felon, a barista, an immigrant or whatever your experience—as your starting point for your revolt against it. Have courage. Find others who feel the same way and block a tech bus. Steal from the techies you babysit for. Take down surveillance cameras. Go hard: The time is now."

      Sounds to me like they want to go out and live off the land like some sort of 1800s pioneers. I don't know what political party that would be, but they don't like capitalism, sounds like they want everyone to work equally and to share everything equally. I guess that's communism?

      Interesting they mention felon, barista, and immigrant (legal? illegal? who knows). No mention of doctors or police, guess in their new "society" there is no need for medicine or security but they need coffee and crime?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    129. Re:Wait so now by ClintJaysiyel · · Score: 1
      You last paragraph tells me you read into THEIR last paragraph too much. They don't talk about doctors or police because these are highly-valued, highly-respected, and highly-powerful people. Why would they need to revolt against society? They are some of the few who will be well off in ANY society, even Nazy Germany. They are the last ones who need to revolve. They are the last ones who ever would.

      Also, I don't get how you get "1800s pioneers" from what they wrote either. Methinks you read between the lines a bit too much. Think of the Amish: They still use computers [contrary to accepted belief] and technology, but only in ways that are approved for the good of their community. They don't practice technology for technology's sake, they use it when it helps them. Some may argue they are happier because of it. Of course that is subjective. Even the amish don't want to go back to 1800s technology.

    130. Re:Wait so now by ClintJaysiyel · · Score: 1

      forgive my many typos

    131. Re: Wait so now by inotrollyou · · Score: 1

      Sounds like agrarian Maoist Communism.

    132. Re:Wait so now by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Those are people not being caught. No doubt you do see some of them pulled over from time to time, just not all of them because there are so many. The difference is that a cop or a politician can do it while they're the only car on a road lined on both sides with cops running speed traps. I find that inherently wrong.

      I'm sure a cop can, if he is in an official service vehicle. A politician would likely be pulled over, but released when they found out who he was. Or maybe not even then.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    133. Re:Wait so now by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What is so wrong with a landlord, who put up his own money buying, repairing and maintaining buildings in a rundown area, to make a profit? Why should the laws of supply and demand not apply to their case? If the law of supply and demand does not apply, the investors should have been told this in the first place, so they could look elsewhere to invest their money, and the area could have stayed rundown slums with low rent.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    134. Re:Wait so now by lgw · · Score: 1

      Only if you bought before. Otherwise you get a 15% interest rate on your mortgage - so you're sort of trapped in whatever house you have.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    135. Re:Wait so now by lgw · · Score: 1

      The tuition bubble threw a huge monkey wrench into the deal. Until that bubble pops, new graduates will face increasingly lower net lifetime earnings IMO. I think it's far worse than the recent financial crises, because many of the people who benefit are the ones lying to our children that it's OK.

      And you know what? If you don't have the ability to work a skilled job, your wages will continue to decline forever. Unskilled labor no longer adds value to society, as robots can do all that, and I expect semi-skilled work to decrease continuously over my lifetime. You need to contribute to society in a way that robots can't - that in itself I think is fine.

      I feel I should rant more about how our education system has been sabotaged (why is it even a problem that you need a skill?) but what would be the point?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    136. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cold as a razor blade?

    137. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, absolutely. This is idiotic. Mind you, I kind of liked the protests around the buses... But this? Targeting an individual in their home? Horrible!

      On the related topic of the commenter who brought up supply/demand in housing, and about how the pressure to prevent new building in SF is a major cost driver, I can't really argue that. I don't like it, because then the choice is stark - either SF becomes horrible, or it becomes unaffordable. A great city which regular people can afford turns into a paradox. So sad!

      On the other hand, if SF became horrible, all the expensive tech people would not want to live there, and would take their lives elsewhere - perhaps build suburbs again, like their parents did.

    138. Re:Wait so now by suutar · · Score: 1

      I do (though I will admit that PF has many more songs that I like than BB), and while my intelligence may be questionable, my existence is pretty solid. At least to me. Your philosophy may vary :)

    139. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      No, being a thieving Capitalist is becoming unpopular, when non elites cannot afford to live in the Bay Area.

    140. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      It isn't the technology, it is the economics that people are getting opposed to. The fact that the engineer developes self-driving cars is less important that he works for Google who is promoting elitism.

    141. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      You totally miss the point. The real estate market appeals blindly to the biggest profit, forgetting about all other things of value, and the companies want to locate in the Bay Area even if there isn't affordable housing. It is the combination of selfish motives that causes this, not government regulation. You just want the society to write blank checks to elites, and not have decisions made selfishly suffer the consequences. The protests are a sign that their becomes a price to pay, even if it is in the wrath of the Great Unwashed. Come to grips with that silver spoon in your mouth and face the fact that people can cause consequences to selfish behavior. So the companies have to pay a surtax to attract people to come into the outrageously inflated Bay Area housing market, but they also have to pay for the backlash against the unseen hand of supply and demand, too bad!. If profit motive is the blanket justification for business behavior, a reaction to it is justification for disruption of business as usual.

    142. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      So now we know what that 'Mission Accomplished' banner really was about.

      Good one, it was that George W. Bush would get to help the banks and financial institutions rob the American Middle Class of equity and destroy the American Dream. Of course the war he was gloating about is still going on and it is a losing proposition that the US. will not win. Leadership is al about good timing and the kind of leaders we create in this country are notoriously bad at it, and the current President is even worse at timing than the last.

      But Bush was a Carpetbagger, a Wall Street Republican transplanted to Texas, complete with fake Southern accent, born in New England, and like that part of the U.S. chock full of NYC financial types with New haven as a satellite, merely. He was all about money, making his benefactors who fund the Republican Party still more rich and promoting the interests of elites. BTW lots of those elites are techies. The importance of Liberarian stupidity in Silicon Valley is testament to that. The number of crack pot engineers and business men is classic. People who are spoiled and always will be, people who think themselves superior to everyone else.

    143. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotal evidence. Plenty of things in the 1970s were not made to last, think cheap plastic Japanese stuff (of that time), most cars, etc. Money now still buys quality things. I still buy (actually build) my computers on the assumption that I'll upgrade them all the time and that will still use them 10 years from now.

    144. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Man, you guys are trying so hard to rationalize this all away. Can it be that you are like the french Noble Class just before the Terror? They never knew what hit them when the revolutionary councils threw them in prison and started lopping off their heads. It is time to come out of your Glass Houses and look at things from the point of view of people who aren't in your elite. You are elitists, you have entitlement, just like the great pride before a fall. Reacting conservatively are spending money on The tea Parties won't save you either, if people who think that you are stealing from them come after you.

    145. Re:Wait so now by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Income isn't wealth. The 1% "earn" nothing. They have trusts and companies they control that make billions, but don't show up on tax forms or surveys. The 1% is mostly invisible because they hide, both themselves and their wealth. a 1% income earner is a Bobby Brown. Tolerated because he'll make $50M in a year, but spend $75M the year after and never actually see wealth. Income doesn't equal wealth, and those that equate them don't understand the issues.

    146. Re:Wait so now by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Yes but what happens as A) The population continually increases B) The proportion of unskilled jobs relative to the total job market continues to decline (caveat: jobs that pay enough for even a single person to survive off of) and C) Inflation eats away at nominal pay increases

      (hint: The end result is not a society anyone would want to live in. Armed guards and gated communities will only keep you safe for so long.)

      If the growth in "skilled" jobs, or even jobs that pay a livable wage increased in relation to population growth/immigration, it would be different. but i don't think anyone can reasonably believe that's the case. Or is it a social Darwinism argument thinly veiled with "omg robots = progress!"?

      I'm going to sound like a bleeding-heart here, but how do we justify corporate profits going through the roof (which they have, during the period in question), while at the same time declaring that the people who actually create those profits, should become continually poorer?

    147. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the google employees are going door-to-door with rifles forcing people from their homes, 1940s style?

      Those villains!

    148. Re:Wait so now by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think the skilled jobs, or at least semi-skilled and well-paying enough to make a living will in fact increase, and can only increase with population. Remember, the more is done by automation, the cheaper everything gets. Our jobs will be providing services to one another. There's a definite trend now for stuff that once only the rich would have others do for them working its way downmarket. Just like every previous technical revolution, the new jobs come because "everyone" can now afford a bunch that used to be only for the rich.

      Remember, the money can be a distraction: what we have are all the goods and services that all of us collectively produce being distributed among all of us (and distributed nearly evenly, compared to wealth or income).

      As far as "corporate profits": total US corporate profits are less than 10% of total US salaries (and increasing numbers of Americans own stock, and benefit directly form those profits). That's a political football, not a real issue. I just can't see a problem with the gross profits being divided 80% labor, 20% capital, and it's less than 20% now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    149. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The far left in the SF Bay Area has fought tooth and nail, for decades, to disallow any dense urban housing construction."

      Say what? The far left has supported low-income housing and new housing projects, notably dense urban ones, for decades in SF. Surely you meant the far right? As a San Franciscan, what you said is new to me.

    150. Re: Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else are you supposed to fix a problem when it's being caused by multi-billion dollar corporations that can buy government influence and generally throw enough money at any problem to make it go away? It's not like the residents of these neighborhoods have that same ability, so they do what they can.

    151. Re:Wait so now by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      Well, okay, you may exist... perhaps I should instead question your taste in music... :-P

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    152. Re:Wait so now by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      In the 1970's that was (generally) one persons income, in 2012 that's two people's income. In terms of physical goods I think we compare quite favorably, but factoring in things like housing, energy and food? Not so much.

      That means you have double the workforce competing for the same jobs. Except even that's not accurate enough. There's 50% more population, so even more than double the work force and low skill jobs are disappearing due to technological advances and outsourcing.

      If you suddenly dumped 100 million people into the workforce in 1975, the society would collapse. So the fact that the economy in 2014 can support such numbers means we are better off than in 1975

    153. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they knew they guy has some GUILT. I d need more details...

    154. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical lack of awareness about the world. South Africa is a well known country.

    155. Re:Wait so now by Xest · · Score: 1

      There's always a proportion of jobs that go to friends and family due to bias and nepotism, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a far larger proportion (like, over 99%) that are granted based on merit.

      Those opportunities were just as much open to these people too.

      P.S. I'm not American, and hopefully never will be.

    156. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's just easier to get a job stealing from (er, babysitting for) the 10% than it is for the 1% - that's all. We won't support those evil technology companies by buying from them.

      Sent from my iPhone

    157. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Mr. T

    158. Re:Wait so now by suutar · · Score: 1

      You would be in excellent company :)

    159. Re:Wait so now by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Matter of fact, I don't think I have even gone into the city in the last year and I don't feel I have missed anything.

      Either that's false, or you need a better city.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    160. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rising rents in the SF Bay Area are caused by fixed supply despite growing demand

      This is a gross oversimplification. Speculation and investment cause spikes and sags in real estate prices that trump any actual change in population. It's Wall Street, stupid! How much do you want to bet that there's big money behind these tech protests?

    161. Re:Wait so now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quite common for a middle-class family to have a maid and a gardener now"? On what planet would that be?

    162. Re:Wait so now by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The French Nobels didn't buy themselves a good enough police force and military to protect themselves from the rabble. Why do you think our law enforcement looks so much like a military these days? They are buying drones, armored personal carriers, and military weapons. It is exactly to prevent The Terror.

    163. Re:Wait so now by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      So, go to any large inner city, especially one with ethnic and immigrant minorities, and what you see ifthat the effectiveness of the police rests on the trust they hold, or don't, with the locals. Conversely, eyes and ears are most effective against crime if the authorities have the cooperation of the residents, far more effective than any amount of weapons and other tactical tools.

      The Syrian government is armed to the teeth, thanks to the Russians, and now three years on in their civil war, they haven't crushed the rebels who started off with no weapons at all. How well armed you are is not as important as having the trust of your neighbors, and that includes the police. The Terror went on as long as it did because the people trusted the revolutionary councils to meat out justice, and when the tide of opinion was that they were abusing their power, they were deposed. Perception is far more powerful than weaponry. The enslaved or repressed have to agree at some level with their oppressors, or if people trust the police to act fairly, the police have far more power than just what weapons they hold.

    164. Re:Wait so now by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      There is much truth to what you say... but you really can't compare America to Syria...

      Our technology is far superior, they don't have drones, we do. We are also rapidly advancing towards the time of having some form of land robot warrior. The Terminator might be a bit far fetched, but something is coming and when it does, it will turn the tables...

      If the 1% can buy an army of robots, there won't be much your average Joe can do with an assault rifle.

      I'm as 2nd amendment as they come, but I'm under no illusion that an AR-15 is of any value against the US military, that is just silly. You'd have to turn the military against the government, which has happened countless times (much of the striking power of the Syrian Rebels comes from defecting Army units.

      But when those Army units are drones, robots, etc... not as easy to turn...

  2. Maniacal by jazman_777 · · Score: 2

    This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:Maniacal by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.

      Boycott them!

      If that doesn't work, organize a vocal protest.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Maniacal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.

      Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.

      Good luck with that, chief.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Maniacal by bob_super · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for the headline: "Protesters show up at the doorstep of NSA and CIA engineers"

      Soft targets, because it says "brave", not stupid.

    4. Re:Maniacal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really. Extortion, threats, harassment, conspiracies to do harm to someone, and organized criminal gangs are not a Constitutional right.

    5. Re:Maniacal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.

      Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.

      Good luck with that, chief.

      Perhaps you failed to realize that is exactly what the FBI and NSA are for, doofus.

      Shit, son, I knew about COINTELPRO when you were still suckling yo mama's titty!

      OK, probably not for that long (especially considering I have no idea how old you are), but I have known about it since the first time I listened to a Dead Kennedy's album back in the early 1990's.

      Guess that initial response was just a reflex to the unwarranted injection of playground name calling in your post.

      Even if your cultural narrative came from Fox News you should have found the FBI's Occupy Wall-street involvement odd.

      Slight aside: That's funny. Not what you said, but rather that you would half-assed accuse someone of being a Fox News 'drone,' then provide a link to the fucking Huffington CrapFest, er, I mean Post. Aside from the fact that HuffPo is, essentially, the 'liberal' answer to Fox (in that it's mainly filled with bullshit, partisan editorials thinly disguised as 'news pieces'), do you really think someone that takes FN as gospel would actually give a shit about a HuffPo link? My guess is no, you know they wouldn't, and are trolling to try and see if you can get me to accidentally name some allegiance that you can subsequently attack me for.

      Not gonna happen. At least, not when discussing any form of American Corporate Media. But hey, I do tend to vote Libertarian, so I'm certain you can come up with some nonsense about that.

      I mean, here you are spouting off about activism and you don't know the first thing about your government policy about it. What the actual fuck?

      It's not that I 'don't know the first thing about [my] government policy.'

      It's that I couldn't give a fuck less what the oligarchs who currently reign think. We have a Constitution, it is the Inalienable, Supreme Law of the Land, and it can only be superseded by a Constitutional Amendment. "Policy" does not trump Constitutional law, per the Constitution.

      For fuck's sake, you morons would make me sick if your politics hadn't heaved me dry.

      Jesus tap-dancing Christ, calm the fuck down you little twit. Shit, my 3 year old nephew has better argumentation skills than you, and he can make his point without degrading into brainless, foaming-at-the-mouth, hateful nonsense.

      If you want to continue this conversation like a grown up, please do; I enjoy intelligent debates with people whose opinions differ from mine.

      If you're going to continue this mindless, asinine troll, you can promptly go fuck yourself.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Maniacal by haruchai · · Score: 0

      Yeah. after all it made the Tea Party into a political force ( with help from some very rich people )

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:Maniacal by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.

      Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.

      Good luck with that, chief.

      Well, if he's the commander-in-chief all he needs is a pen and a phone apparently.

    8. Re:Maniacal by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      We have a Constitution, it is the Inalienable, Supreme Law of the Land,

      I assume that you are referring to those "certain unalienable Rights" with your statement above. They were outlined in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

      and it can only be superseded by a Constitutional Amendment. "Policy" does not trump Constitutional law, per the Constitution.

      You mean things like unreasonable search and seizure? Been to an airport lately?

      Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Just a few minor things I wanted to point out.

    9. Re:Maniacal by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Naw. That is Sf, they are deeply nuts there. All that needs to happen is for Google and other companies to leave. Austin Tx is nice I hear as is Cary North Carolina, South Florida also has nice weather and low housing costs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Maniacal by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      No need for that. In a tightly packed city it's kinda dicey, but in a place where the land in earshot or line-of-sight on your house is private property, any protest that you can hear/see from your living room window is automatically trespassing. The rule of law (and as a last resort, the second amendment) tend to mitigate these sorts of issues. I don't like the nutjobs one bit, but then I don't live in Berkeley or places it like it for that very reason.

    11. Re:Maniacal by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've noticed that protesters never seem to picket the homes of generals.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    12. Re:Maniacal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amendment? Bah. Shooting a couple of them should solve the problem.

      Failing that, shoot all of them.

      Word verification: bustard (bus tard?).

    13. Re:Maniacal by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The problem is those area's are in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida.

      None of which are known for their overly rational people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Maniacal by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.

      3/4 of the State legislatures. It takes 2/3 of the States to call a Constitutional Convention to propose new Amendments, but 3/4 to get them approved.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Maniacal by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      As opposed to SF? I think this story shows that SF is not known for overly rational people. Austin is is home to a lot of tech companies, Research Triangle is home to Red Hat and SAS, South and central Florida is home to a growing bio tech industry as well as space tech.
      I think you are a bit clueless in this case.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Maniacal by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0

      Obama is doing what needs to be done because Congress is gridlocked due to "adults" throwing tantrums such as shutting down the government and never compromising and because a large number of people in it are opposing Obama every way they can because he is BLACK!

      (Don't tell me racism has nothing to do with it, because it DOES!)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    17. Re:Maniacal by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Down with protestors!
      Down with protestors!
      Down with protestors!

    18. Re:Maniacal by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      As opposed to SF? I think this story shows that SF is not known for overly rational people..

      Sure, because we should judge an entire city due to a few crazy people. That's rational.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    19. Re:Maniacal by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I realize I'm probably just feeding a troll. But does what you typed, really convey the thoughts in your head? If so, you may want to seek some professional help.

      Our entire government was set up so that nothing happens fast. Very little gets passed without debate, which is good for the country. How's this for gridlock? It passed unanimously in the house, and I believe so in the senate and was signed into law by the president on April 15, 2013. The Patriot act was also passed damn near unanimous, along with invading Iraq. Our founding fathers wanted there to be debate and discussion on everything. Unfortunately they gave us more credit than they should have as they thought we wold put intelligent people in charge of things. Not the retards we've had for several decades now.

      When the republicans threatened in the past to pass a bill using reconciliation, which is meant for budgets, democrats screamed about how it would be the end of our way of life blah, blah. Then they used it to pass the ACA. Now it's the republicans who are screaming the same thing. Too bad there is a video record of both of them being adamantly for it when it's to their benefit, and against it when it's not.

      (Don't tell me racism has nothing to do with it, because it DOES!)

      I'm telling you that if you think that it's all due to racism, you are a fucking idiot. Are there some racists in congress? I'd guess so. Do I believe it's the majority? Well, perhaps the Senate Majority leader Or the current Vice President And again.. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of republicans saying stupid things like this too. But do you really think it affects the way they vote? If so, then Harry Reid must vote against anything the president wants passed. OR could it be possible that he said something that was questionable and not be a racist?

    20. Re:Maniacal by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.

      Sorry, no. 2/3 is how much of the House and Senate have to vote Yes. Ratification requires 3/4th of the States.

    21. Re:Maniacal by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Lolzers, you go girl! I think you should get a cookie for your brave stance against racism.

    22. Re:Maniacal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      We have a Constitution, it is the Inalienable, Supreme Law of the Land,

      I assume that you are referring to those "certain unalienable Rights" with your statement above. They were outlined in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

      No, I meant what I said - per the Constitution, which authorizes the government's existence, no law can supersede it, other than a Constitutional Amendment.

      and it can only be superseded by a Constitutional Amendment. "Policy" does not trump Constitutional law, per the Constitution.

      You mean things like unreasonable search and seizure? Been to an airport lately?

      Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Just a few minor things I wanted to point out.

      The only reason they get away with that kind of shit is because the People let them. I haven't been inside an airport since 1999 for damn good reason - I do not support authoritarian regimes, nor do I support private groups (ex., corporations) that support authoritarian regimes.

      'Vote with your dollar' and all that jazz.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Maniacal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      but in a place where the land in earshot or line-of-sight on your house is private property, any protest that you can hear/see from your living room window is automatically trespassing..

      Uh, citation? I've never heard that one before.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:Maniacal by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well since I was replying to this message.
      "The problem is those area's are in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida.

      None of which are known for their overly rational people."

      I would say it is more rational to judge a whole city by a few people than several states. I am sure that their are rational people in SF. There are crazy and rational people just about everywhere. The problem is that SF is actually becoming even more hostile to business than before.
      Of course there is this http://sfist.com/2013/05/09/41... as well.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Maniacal by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Uh, basic property rights? If my front yard is so big that you can't make me hear you unless you go onto my front yard, and I can hear you, then you must be on my front yard.

    26. Re:Maniacal by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, I misread that sentence.

      My bad, carry on.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. morons by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

    1. Re:morons by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

      They probably just wanted revenue so they decided to tax the buses.

    2. Re:morons by hawguy · · Score: 2

      So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

      They probably just wanted revenue so they decided to tax the buses.

      They aren't earning any revenue from the buses -- state law prohibits the city from earning a profit on the bus stop fees, so the fees equal the administrative overhead to collect them.

    3. Re:morons by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

      One issue is that they are using the existing network of bus stops, but they don't contribute anything to the city. Workers wait at the existing bus stops, the private buses stop there, but the private buses do not pay any additional tax or anything that would be associated with maintaining the public transport network.

      The other issue is that, since all of the young high-paid workers are living in the city instead of near work, they have driven up prices to the point that existing residents can no longer afford to live there. In some cases, landlords have evicted existing paying residents simply because they would be able to get more rent from someone else. Apparently there is some law or ordinance that gives the landlords power to do that, so people are protesting against that also.

      They basically want the companies to contribute to the public transportation infrastructure, and they would also really appreciate it if people working for those companies stopped offering so much money for housing within the city. That second one is probably not likely to happen.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:morons by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Don't these buses pay fuel tax like every private vehicle? And exactly how much does it cost to allow people to stand on the sidewalk and wait for a bus? Are you going to stop loitering of any kind at busy stops? Those damn loiterers and their drain on the public transportation system...

    5. Re:morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentrification. The high income earners are raising the prices to the point that locals can't keep up.

    6. Re:morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hire all of the protestors as bus stop tax auditors you can charge Google what you want. Administrative overhead and all that.

    7. Re:morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases, landlords have evicted existing paying residents simply because they would be able to get more rent from someone else. Apparently there is some law or ordinance that gives the landlords power to do that, so people are protesting against that also.

      Yeah, it's called "owning the property".

    8. Re:morons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One issue is that they are using the existing network of bus stops, but they don't contribute anything to the city.

      Yes, yes they do. Google has paid for the use of those stops. A little basic fact-checking wouldn't hurt. Hope you normally do better — I've been taking your posts on faith, but that's over now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:morons by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      No, Google has not paid for the use of the stops. You're referencing an article written 2 days ago about a proposal that just got passed which will go into effect in July. They have not been paying for the use of the stops, hence the protesting, hence the new proposal that you linked to. That proposal is a response to the issue of them not paying. They are not paying voluntarily, they are being forced by the city to pay. I mean, look at the headline on the article you referenced:

      Apple, Google Shuttles to Pay to Use Public Bus Stops in San Francisco

      "To Pay" means in the future. If they were paying now that would say "are paying" instead of "to pay". The second paragraph pretty much spells it out:

      Previously, the city was not receiving any income from the campus buses, even though they often used city bus stops. Today that changed as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) approved a pilot proposal (via The Verge) that will require commuter shuttle buses from companies like Apple to pay $1 for each stop they make every day.

      The last paragraph indicates that the program is set to start in July.

      So, again, one issue that the protesters have been raising is that the buses use the public bus stops, but haven't been paying anything. Sorry to shake your fragile faith. Hopefully you have a better day.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:morons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They are not paying voluntarily, they are being forced by the city to pay.

      You don't say. I don't voluntarily pay taxes, either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Flat-earthers by sabri · · Score: 1

    Yes, these Indymedia commie's will go in the history book as modern day flat-earthers. What an idiots, targeting one of the brightest engineers working on cutting-edge technology.

    If they were born in the 1900s, they would have targeted Nikola Tesla.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    1. Re:Flat-earthers by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Yes, these Indymedia commie's will go in the history book as modern day flat-earthers. What an idiots, targeting one of the brightest engineers working on cutting-edge technology.

      If they were born in the 1900s, they would have targeted Nikola Tesla.

      Didn't Thomas Edison target Nikola Tesla? Sometimes people target others, not because they are opposed to the concept,but because they want people to buy their version of it.

  5. Hierarchy of perceived victimhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Levandowski should claim that the protesters are motivated by anti-semitism. Checkmate!

    1. Re:Hierarchy of perceived victimhood by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Lewandowski is a slavic name. Not a jewish name.

    2. Re:Hierarchy of perceived victimhood by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's true, Hitler rode a tech bus.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today. by t0qer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I started thinking to myself, "Wow, I only live a mile from where they pick folks up, and they drop me off about a mile from work" Maybe SF should take into consideration that non-goog-app-fac employees might want to ride on the same line. These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

  7. First they came for the Engineers, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Engineer.

    Then they came for the Software Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because there was no Software Union.

    Then they came for the Network Admins, and I did not speak out-- Because those guys are mostly assholes.

    Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

    1. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by bunratty · · Score: 5, Funny

      I joined a Facebook group in protest, so I'm good.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      I joined a Facebook group in protest, so I'm good.

      +1 Like

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

      That's because I speak for myself, like a real man.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Well, let know know how that works when a bunch or armored, armed real men come to take you a way.

      They idea that a real man would speak for others is appalling and indicator that you are a coward using excuses.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a huge faggot.

    6. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Well, let know know how that works when a bunch or armored, armed real men come to take you a way."

      Considering a large portion of my skeleton is made of titanium, and I run an entire shipping dock at a large distribution center by myself (that's manually moving 30+ tons, BTW, with musculature to match) they can try. I can run right through most of them in ways a linebacker could only dream of.

      And they've tried. Thugs trying to rob me, armored with vests and helmets because I might have a gun with which to fight back. They picked the wrong felon to fuck with. That stuff doesn't protect joints when you're getting picked up and slammed into the floor or wall.

      Also, you speak of cowardice, and display your own in the same sentence. That's almost worth applause, right there, hypocrite.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:First they came for the Engineers, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Engineer.

      Then they came for the Software Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because there was no Software Union.

      Then they came for the Network Admins, and I did not speak out-- Because those guys are mostly assholes.

      Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

      Everybody in slashdot thinks they are CEOs

  8. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't see anything in the article about unions. Stop being an asshole.

  9. Austin Texas Bound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this nonsense keeps up how long will it be before Google leaves SF for Austin Texas like every other California company?

    1. Re:Austin Texas Bound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord please stay out of Texas, we have a enough morons from california in texas grrr...

    2. Re:Austin Texas Bound by Dale512 · · Score: 1

      Oh please yes! Get the Google employees here in the suburbs so they expand Google Fiber out to where I am.

    3. Re:Austin Texas Bound by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I whole heartedly agree. I couldn't bare to see Texans squeezed out of Texas. Keep them there where they're well contained and away from me. It's bad enough I have to deal with their politicians from time to time.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:Austin Texas Bound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Austin is not that different than San Fran - a bunch of hippie leftists who hate progress, prosperity, and social order.

  10. The candlestick makers did the same thing... by bazmail · · Score: 0, Troll

    in the 1920s in rural USA when it was being connected to the power grid. "He took r jobs!!!!".
    When society no longer values your skillset, its time to upskill of GTFO.

    The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

    1. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by admiralh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve? I think that tech advances are generally good, but this "Creative Destruction" comes at a cost to certain individuals in society who were unlucky/unconnected enough to choose the wrong profession. You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

      The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

      Wow. I think you would fit into Putin's (or Stalin's) Russia just fine.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    2. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve?

      They were supposed to have learned more than one skill in their entire lifetime. I have no understanding of why so many people feel they should go through life only knowing how to do one thing well. It's not a good idea. Personally, I can program, sysadmin, fix cars, and perform electrician work to code. If any one of those goes away, I'll survive just fine. In fact, if computers go away (fat chance) I will do fine. Even if electricity went away, I'd do fine.

    3. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve?

      I think that tech advances are generally good, but this "Creative Destruction" comes at a cost to certain individuals in society who were unlucky/unconnected enough to choose the wrong profession.

      You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

      The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

      Wow. I think you would fit into Putin's (or Stalin's) Russia just fine.

      I presume OP is the type who will dump their parents in the cheapest, shittiest nursing home they can, just as soon as mom and pop outlive their usefulness.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      in the 1920s in rural USA when it was being connected to the power grid. "He took r jobs!!!!".
      When society no longer values your skillset, its time to upskill of GTFO.

      The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

      Yes, evil microbrewers all over America are taking the bread out of the mouths of megaswill brew workers. Shameful!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I find their choice of protest targets rather strange (If you think that autonomous vehicles are the biggest of your problems, or that Google is the major threat in that area, you are painfully uninformed...); but do you seriously expect people to just 'GTFO' (and to where?) whenever technological change comes knocking? Economic threats are one of the few things that reliably get people worked up, and technological change definitely is one, if you are the one being rendered obsolete at a given time.

      Rhetoric for, or against, 'natural' or 'god given' rights tends to be nonsense; but expecting people to not get touchy when you come after their bread and butter seems like either profound ignorance of history and human nature, or a... perhaps unsteady... theory of social order. Hard to keep a game running if most of the players lose most of the time, no?

    6. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by frog_strat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all well and good when the jobs are still there, they're just changing. That candlestick maker, he can retrain to work on robots ! But when jobs are shed and not replaced, this will eventually lead to big problems. Shaming the unemployed is not so effective when there are no jobs.

    7. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve?

      Basically, yeah. And I say that as someone who has upgraded his skills and changed careers twice since I turned 50.

      You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

      Change doesn't happen overnight. Even some animals are smart enough to stock up for the winter.

    8. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      They are total fucking morons. Their problem is with rising rents. Rising rents are a result of a shortage of housing in the city falling way short of demand. Shortage of housing in the city is the result of these same idiots objecting to every residential development taller than a gas station. Who do they blame? Not themselves, they prefer to scapegoat some tech workers, most of whom spend money in local businesses and help the local economy anyway. These ignorant cretins are so fucking stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    9. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Why pay for a nursing home when Soylent Grey is a saleable commodity?

    10. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shaming the unemployed is not so effective when there are no jobs.

      Sure it is! It's still a perfectly good rhetorical justification for not doing anything about them, and I'm certain they'll either starve or do something we can imprison them for soon enough!

    11. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      If you plan for the future, you don't have to get angry at the present.

    12. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't have welfare or food stamps back then. Did the 55 year old candlestick maker starve?

      People get support from their friends, family, and neighbors.

    13. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      So they're idiots for not wanting to live surrounded by skyscrapers. Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly know that these were the same people, and are just basically shaking your fist online at a feeling, why should I have to live in unending construction around me just to not have my rent go up?

      Guess I can blame this one on the breeders.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    14. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      This is just another face of the same stupid coin that continually rears its ugly head. I will not accept an inferior {x} because of inflexible/incapable {y}. I will not accept the bar being lowered to the lowest common denominator. Step up or step aside.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    15. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Each an every Google employee represents new revenue poured into the local community. If no one is entrepreneurial enough to capture some of that and employ others to help that is not the fault of Google, nor its employees.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    16. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you plan for the future, you don't have to get angry at the present.

      Yeah, 100% of people can predict 100% of the future and have 100% of the capability to deal with it. Not.

      The reality, and not the fiction you are spouting, is that a significant percentage of the population are simply unlucky or don't have the genes or upbringing to compete with the world at large. I for one want to live in a world where as many of these people as possible don't live retched lives. We can argue over the best way to achieve that but the so-called "free market" in it's purest form is just warlordism, might makes right. Checks and balances are a good thing sometimes.

    17. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Yes, constantly upgrading / learning new skills sets is important core part of life. I see plenty for 55+ people working at walmart that takes no skills at all just a pile of patience for stupid.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    18. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't know it was just a failure to plan for the strange weather that killed all those people in the twin towers.

    19. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      But nobody's suggesting that they go live on the street.

      I live in New York City. One area or another has been gentrifying since before they came up with the name. You know what this means? It means the city is healthy - there is an influx of new people. Yuppie types (who themselves, like these protesters, kicked out people as well) come in and move to the cheaper areas they can afford and make them fashionable. Some of them stay (and make more money as they advance), and some richer people move in now that there's restaurants and other amenities. And the next generation of yuppies goes somewhere else and the process repeats. For example, my parents now couldn't afford the apartment I was born in - it's now worth more than their decently-sized house in one of the wealthiest suburbs in NJ. The Daily News loading dock across the street was turned into a bunch of really, really nice condos.

      And this is a good thing! And it's been happening forever. The '66 West Side Story movie showing a grimy Upper West Side was actually filmed in the grimy UWS - about where Lincoln Center is now - and now that neighborhood is one of the most expensive parts of one of the most expensive parts of one of the most expensive cities. You know why you don't hear people in NYC bitching about it? It's because people don't feel like they have a right to live anywhere in particular, so they're comfortable with moving, and public transit is so good that there's a large area you can move to (including parts of NJ) without significantly affecting your commute. There's also a lot of housing, at various price levels.

      Now, of course, SF isn't really like that. Public transit sucks, so moving makes it really hard to get to work, and they've been so adverse to improving it - or building more housing of any type - that housing is dramatically supply limited. There simply aren't any units available, and whenever one is, some techie who can afford to pay 6 months rent in advance is going to get it. Can you really blame them, or the landlord? It's a supply problem exacerbated by no-transit hyperlocality (e.g., it has to be *right here*)

      Yes, I think everybody - including the techies! - agree that the status quo sucks. Perhaps the proud, longtime residents of SF shouldn't have spent 30 years making it impossible to avoid this problem, and shouldn't be fighting the solutions now!

      We already have a name for the right to stay in your apartment for as long as they like - it's called "ownership", and it can suck. Renting avoids that hassle, and is cheaper, but the whole point is someone has to agree to rent it to you, and that can be withdrawn. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    20. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Apparently it is better to curse the darkness, whining to politicians, than light a candlestick.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    21. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve?

      Frankly, yes.

      You want to get lazy - you want to stop pursuing knowledge? Good luck with that. The world will pass you by quite quickly.

      And protip: The world owes you nothing. Sorry you think you should be able to learn something at the start of your career and coast 20-50 years into retirement on a tiny microscopic piece of skill. It doesn't work like that. It has never worked like that outside of sitcoms written by jackasses.

    22. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      let's not forget some people can not up skill. Due to age, or assets.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and when you plans are destroyed by an investment firm who uses money from accounts that they where not supposed to use?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's other places to live than SF Bay. If the area is becoming to expensive for you, sell your home (for it's new higher value) to some rich kid hipster and move to a cheaper neighborhood. I don't think anyone is going to start because they have to move out of SF Bay.

    25. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      So they're idiots for not wanting to live surrounded by skyscrapers.

      No, I'd say they are idiots for blaming others for the things they themselves are partly to blame for. I'm referring to the building and property zoning laws. Hell, you know democracy, I'm sure. If majority rules, then everyone shares blame. That also means not singling anyone out, like these cretins are doing to some random engineer who happens to work for a company that they currently find fashionable to hate or are be jealous of.

    26. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      If you "don't want to be surrounded by skyscrapers" then move to the suburbs or the wilderness. Living in a place like San Francisco and complaining about the city's evolution and increasing density is the very definition of stupid.

      Higher density (which is better for the environment, you know) is the only thing that's going to solve this problem, not standing like an idiot in front of a coach and angrily waving a sign.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    27. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have all your eggs in one basket then you DID NOT plan for the future.

    28. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! italian candlestick makers are so smart to invent the telephone, that runs on electricity.

    29. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had been my place, I'd have them arrested for tresspassing. If they were on the street, I'd be sure to intimate inviting them to my lawn without actually inviting them, then whammo - off to jailsville for them. Or, open up on them with the sonic canons installed in my auto-car :)

    30. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      So do you think that the engineer is above blame, that he isn't part of the problem, or is he simply more entitled to the benefit of the arrangement? I read the protest against Google and Facebook to mean more than just resentment that they are naking it harder for people of ordinary means to live in the Bay Area. I think it is due to the realization that these same ordinary people get whenever they use a computer that these companies are not returning something of value that compensates the impact that there employees have on everybody else. There has been a sea change. People are beginning to doubt the universal good of tech, and so they don't put up with the downside as much as they have. The downside is nothing new. The housing market has been insane in the bay Area since at least 1972. It is the fact that Silicon Valley is no longer seen as opportunity, that is is run by an increasingly closed elite, and that it hasn't realized its promise of benefit to all. In fact the conduct of Google and Facebook has shown everybody, tech or not, that there is a downside, That these companies are business as usual in the sense of malfeisance and greed that typifies more traditional industries, that hiring lots of smart people does not mean a better service. Indeed, in the case of these two companies, it indicates an advesarial relationship to the public at large. So every bit of manipulation, of spying, or effort to deceive that happens undermines the vaunted status of tech, of computer scientists, or software engineers. Ordinary people are less inclined to give tech workers the benefit of the doubt and put up with the downside.

    31. Re:The candlestick makers did the same thing... by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Man, can I tell that you are ignorant of history, or an elitist. Elitists always think they can get away with something, but real world events have a way of proving them wrong. You may think that the police and rule of law protects you from the wrath of a mob, just like the French Nobility thought themselves immune for the mob in 1791. Even the Great Unwashed deserves deference from you. You haven't been following events in the rest of the world, have you, and you suffer the illusion that it can't happen here. Peace in this nation is due to some realities that you might be helping to upset, but then again, most people, especially some of the smartest. become victim to unintended consequences.

  11. Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are morons.

    If you push and push and push, Google will eventually decide it's best to just move their head office elsewhere (increased expenses, increased threat to their workforce, difficulty hiring new people due to growing animosity towards Google staff, etc., etc., etc. will eventually push them to say "screw this, we're gone!").

    I'm sure you're thinking "YAY!! Please do!!" but that's damn short-sighted. If they pack up and leave, a MASSIVE amount of spending power will leave an you'll watch as restaurants and clothing boutiques and this and that start going out of business rather rapidly. Let's ignore the tax money that Google's employees bring to the city - they employees also bring their spending power. You want to kiss that goodbye? Go right ahead - keep doing what you're doing - but do so knowing that you will drastically harm the economy of your city and it will take well over a decade to recover (look at the effect any major business's exodus has had on a neighbourhood - at least a decade to recover).

    But, hey, it's fun to watch you cut off your nose to spite your face so take this advice or don't.

    1. Re:Dear San Fran by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You are morons.

      Who is the bigger moron -- those that protest against a Google Developer for his work on technology, or someone that reads about a protest in Berkeley and tells the people of San Francisco to stop protesting?

      That said, Google could pack up and leave SF without making difference in the economy -- there aren't *that* many Google employees in SF. But if all of the tech companies (iuncluding those with significant presence in SF) disappeared overnight (like they did during the original dot-com Bust), then it would have an effect on the city -- both good and bad. Not everyone saw the dot-com bust as a bad thing, and are hoping for another bust.

    2. Re:Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of other states in the US that would bend over backwards (possibly some even forwards) to have Google move there. If one wants the ocean, there is always Portland. A liberal population, Austin. An urban environment, NYC. Bay area, there is always Palo Alto or other places. More south, there is San Diego.

      SF is a cool city, but there are many, many other places that would be just as good, if not better for a corporate HQ.

    3. Re:Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy solution: These companies should open major offices in downtown San Francisco. Build a skyscraper (vertical campus!) that is walking distance from a BART subway stop. They already have one (very small) office in the downtown SF area (opened in 2007). Same with Yahoo (though they can't afford a skyscraper), who recently bought the old SF Chronicle building.

    4. Re:Dear San Fran by ackthpt · · Score: 1, Interesting

      San Francisco is Contrary City - Whinge - whinge, whine - whine, protest at the drop of a hat. "What are we protesting today, Fred?" "I don't know, Dave, I just looked up in the sky and saw the Protest Signal." The crazy thing is as screwed up as The City seems to be, it still works and people like living there. (It is a fine place to visit, just don't bring your car!)

      The real problem here is the mobility of workers has caught up with the ability for them to get to work. 101 is a rotten old road, which seems to always be under repair in some stretch and those work zones play havoc with the dense traffic. I-280 is a pretty good bet for a sprint, until you get near Redwood City, where it begins to clob up (and there's just no good way of getting through these bay area cities and to the campus along Shoreline. Google should just open a campus in SFO (or expand whatever they have already.)

      This moving people about in cars, when you are a tech company at the forefront of communications is an anachronism.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Dear San Fran by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy solution: These companies should open major offices in downtown San Francisco. Build a skyscraper (vertical campus!) that is walking distance from a BART subway stop. They already have one (very small) office in the downtown SF area (opened in 2007). Same with Yahoo (though they can't afford a skyscraper), who recently bought the old SF Chronicle building.

      Build a skyscraper!? You really don't know anything about SF, do you?

    6. Re:Dear San Fran by Altus · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure its the people protesting a simple engineer and blaming him personally for socioeconomic conditions the world over and not taking any responsibility for their own huge complacency in such a system.

      Never mind the implied sky net shit about self driving cars.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    7. Re:Dear San Fran by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "What are we protesting today, Fred?" "I don't know, Dave, I just looked up in the sky and saw the Protest Signal."

      They must have heard about the Paris Riot Signal and decided they wanted them some o' that.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a skyscraper!? You really don't know anything about SF, do you?

      I live there, though I can't say I've tried to construct a building there. How about you?

      You do realize that pretty much the entirety of Mission Bay was built in the last year or two, right? Tons of tall buildings (that link is just condos) going up in that area, among quite a few others. I could count maybe a dozen 20+ floor complexes around the city that are opening within a year of today. That includes the 80-floor Transbay Tower.

    9. Re:Dear San Fran by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Build a skyscraper!? You really don't know anything about SF, do you?

      I live there, though I can't say I've tried to construct a building there. How about you?

      You do realize that pretty much the entirety of Mission Bay was built in the last year or two, right? Tons of tall buildings (that link is just condos) going up in that area, among quite a few others. I could count maybe a dozen 20+ floor complexes around the city that are opening within a year of today. That includes the 80-floor Transbay Tower.

      Funny that you mention the Transbay Terminal -- planning for the Transbay Terminal replacement began around 2000, and the project isn't slated to be finished until 2017, nearly 20 years later. And this project fulfills a civic need to have a transit terminal, it's not just a private office building. Total cost for the center is projected to be around $4.5B. And it's already $300M over budget, they kept the project going by taking money from funds that were supposed to be used to extend the trains there -- you know, the whole purpose of a transit center... transit!

      Somehow I don't think Google is going to commit billions of dollars and 2 decades to trying to build an office tower in SF. Especially given that many in SF already blame Google for the city's problems.

    10. Re:Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transbay terminal is connected to a poorly executed public transit extension, which pops out of the ground in a dozen or so places. That's the source of the delays. Well, that and the issues with public funding. Google wouldn't have that problem (unless they tried putting a transit station in the building's basement...).

      Google also wouldn't need an 80 story building. The new Googleplex is 1.1 million sq ft. If a city block is 260 feet long (that's a low-ball estimate), then a large building filling that city block would be 67,600 sq feet. Seventeen stories at that size would be 1.15M sq ft, twenty stories would yield 1.35M sq ft. So the term "skyscraper" isn't even necessary. There have certainly been quite a few buildings in the ~20 floor range put up in the last few years (at a construction time of about 2-3 years).

      Sorry you didn't see the humor in all of this. There's no way Google's going to abandon their brand new campus and move up to a city where the land costs at least 5x and build a new complex, be it 17 floors or 80 floors.

    11. Re:Dear San Fran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen how many skyscrapers are being built in SF right now or recently, including one for salesforce.com (Fremont & Mission).

  12. illiberal attack on technology advancement by zerosomething · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a very good example of people who like to call them selves "Liberal" not being very liberal. Technology will advance and apparently some people don't like it in the same way some other people don't like gay marriage or pot smoking.

    --
    It all starts at 0
    1. Re:illiberal attack on technology advancement by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      This is a very good example of people who like to call them selves "Liberal" not being very liberal. Technology will advance and apparently some people don't like it in the same way some other people don't like gay marriage or pot smoking.

      People are liberal or conservative, depending upon the issue. A preponderance of issues one aligns with one side or the other of the political spectrum is where they will likely place themselves politically. Though there are also people who are ignorant or living in denial (sometimes to preserve connections, position and power) who side against their own personal interest.

      There are gay conservatives and conservatives who smoke pot (lots of then actually) so it's all really a mixed bag.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:illiberal attack on technology advancement by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Liberal and "progressive" are not as synonymous as much as the left-wingers would love to portray. I have less problems with Liberals as they tend to try to have rational (even if I disagree with them) reasons for their positions, but Progressives are usually the ones proclaiming one-offs and anecdotes as "the way things actually are". Therefore, they extrapolate their cause and attack people doing their job for being "evil", and filled with "hate" simply because they don't agree. There is no logic, and their entire point rests upon name calling anyone they disagree with labels such as "extremists" (see Cuomo's recent remarks).

      Just be careful to know which kind of "liberal" you're talking to.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:illiberal attack on technology advancement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with how it affects SF neighbourhoods to have a bunch of rich engineers moving in who prefer it to the Valley because it's cheaper and 'cooler', but who have no interest in being part of the community, but segregate themselves in various ways, including having special private transport take them to work so that they don't have to get on a regular bus with the smelly people. If Google employees were making woad or cuckoo clocks or crinolines in Mountain View this campaign would be happening the same way/

  13. Protesting against themselves? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of their flyer says:

    There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft

    Unless they all walked there and are wearing homemade clothes from home grown cotton weaved by hand into fabric, and "printed" their flyers by hand by writing them using sustainably harvested carbon pencils on home made papyrus, and organized the protest through word of mouth (which was probably aided by the fact that they all live in the same cave) rather than using email and iPhones, they are being disingenuous by protesting against resources used for technology that they themselves use and enjoy.

    1. Re:Protesting against themselves? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      worse, it's not like the majority of any precious metal is used in technology. If we only used precious metals and stones for their technological uses, there wouldn't be massive exploitation in those areas because the money wouldn't be nearly as good.

    2. Re:Protesting against themselves? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Part of their flyer says:

      There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft

      Unless they all walked there and are wearing homemade clothes from home grown cotton weaved by hand into fabric, and "printed" their flyers by hand by writing them using sustainably harvested carbon pencils on home made papyrus, and organized the protest through word of mouth (which was probably aided by the fact that they all live in the same cave) rather than using email and iPhones, they are being disingenuous by protesting against resources used for technology that they themselves use and enjoy.

      Now wait a minute. I'm as liberal as the day is long, and I say fuck these protesters. I mean, it's all good to be "protesting the man" for being the man and stuff, but showing up at some guy's house? Oh, but wait! Are they giving out cookies? I'll grab my pitchfork and be right over!

      What they may *really* be protesting (whether or not this is the stated goal), I think, is that your average Googler is one of the "haves" who will always have a reasonably good job, be able to afford to live in SF or wherever. They, on the other hand, have worked hard for a long time, yet they see their standard of living slipping. They identify with the oppressed and their horrible living and working conditions. That is a noble cause perhaps, but they are obviously doing it wrong, like protesting against the bus driver over the bus fare.

    3. Re:Protesting against themselves? by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      It's typical moron drivel trying to drive their point home by attempting to induce guilt rather than by rational argument. It's a last ditch effort at trying to effect some kind of change in the world outside so they don't have to change themselves.

    4. Re:Protesting against themselves? by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These idiots probably designed those flyers on a Mac using Microsoft Office, and used Google to find all the facts and allegations in their flyers.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    5. Re:Protesting against themselves? by neo-mkrey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hypocrisy is often lost on the hypocrite.

    6. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't particularly agree with these guys, but the argument of "you're not a ridiculously exaggerated shining beacon of the ideals I lay upon you, so your argument is worthless" is pretty piss poor.

    7. Re:Protesting against themselves? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The bit about the gold is very disingenuous. Largest gold mine in the US is in Nevada. Though gold is a commodity, it's not like some supply isn't local.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITs California, They would use Hemp.

    9. Re:Protesting against themselves? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't particularly agree with these guys, but the argument of "you're not a ridiculously exaggerated shining beacon of the ideals I lay upon you, so your argument is worthless" is pretty piss poor.

      So if I stand in front of you eating a steak and tell you that you need to be a vegetarian because your meat eating habits are cruel to animals, you wouldn't find me to be the least bit disingenuous? Realistically, I don't need to be a vegetarian to think that killing animals for food is bad, and really, why shouldn't I tell you that what you're doing is wrong even as I do the same thing myself?

      Talking on an iPhone while giving a Google engineer a digitally printed flyer to tell him that his use of technology is forcing men and women in the Congo into slavery to mine gold certainly seems to be diluting the message. If they'd just stuck with things like privacy concerns, worries about robot cars on the roads, etc, that's one thing, but to tell someone that his use of technology is bad, while they are using much of the same technology themselves just comes across as hypocritical.

    10. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is hypocritical, (but they are also a product of their society and era, making use of the tools at their disposal) I said I don't particularly agree, but that doesn't make your first point any less of a fallacy..

    11. Re:Protesting against themselves? by grimsnaggle · · Score: 2

      Their flyer also asks for people to disengage from capitalism and for babysitters to steal from their employers.
      http://i.imgur.com/5ACrabf.png

    12. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best fuckin` part is aside from Apple in limited quantity, none of those companies actually manufacture the fucking products. I may be liberal overall, but I can easily concede that there is just as many rabid-retards in our movement as on the other side of the fence.

    13. Re:Protesting against themselves? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Talking on an iPhone while giving a Google engineer a digitally printed flyer

      Oh, now it all makes sense, they're Android haters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great argument, after all there is no difference between wearing shoes and having a iPhone, they are both equally necessary.

    15. Re:Protesting against themselves? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      What is the problem with that? Google uses YOUR information without asking you first...

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    16. Re:Protesting against themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are so clueless about technology that they'll say to themselves, "look, google will tell you all about how nefarious it is!"

  14. Re:Thugocracy in Action by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

    Next you're going to ask him to stop keeping Rush Limbaugh quotes and take down his Ron Paul shrine.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. move to new York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love these tech giant's to move to long island. We could use the revenue.

  16. Pile of fucking yes men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry if you don't agree with the fucking neckbeards here - you won't be seen or read. Nice fucking echo-chamber. You should produce a site for Fox - faggots.

  17. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't see anything about government, either. Why only take offense at the part about unions?

  18. Let's prevent the future! by atari2600a · · Score: 1

    It's the only way to not let the killer robots rule humanity after the Goopocolypse!

    1. Re:Let's prevent the future! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      What I find somewhat curious is that Google is the one taking the heat... I can certainly understand the lack of enthusiasm for a data-driven surveillance dystopia with killer robots; but anyone who thinks that stopping Google won't simply ensure that it'll be Acxiom or LexisNexis guiding General Atomics or iRobot deathbots instead seems like a serious optimist.

    2. Re:Let's prevent the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google won't simply ensure that it'll be Acxiom or LexisNexis guiding General Atomics

      I've worked with Lexis.. and if they ever put the effort into killer robots that they have into legal heuristics, we are fucked.

  19. Re:Thugocracy in Action by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  20. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, but then they become a common carrier, just like city buses, and competing with city buses.
    We can't have any private industry competing with City mass transit in the race to the bottom.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  21. Money talks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and bullshit walks.

  22. Re:Thugocracy in Action by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

    No government or unions involved at all=blame government and the unions because those are who I'm told to hate.

  23. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the Tech companies need to get the hell out of Commie-Fornia.

    They are no longer welcome, and that state HATES businesses with a passion.

  24. That's it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, the only thing left to do is establish a secure employee enclave within a hollowed out mesa in Maricopa County Arizona.

    1. Re:That's it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already did that - Google fucking left before the year ended.

  25. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Altus · · Score: 1

    There is a mention of the local government regulating the use of public transit stops for shuttle busses. Still, pretty tenuous.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  26. Not wrong, just ignorant. Not unimaginative, just by deathcloset · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine nor will his children...

    And maybe if you would let him finish working on his robots, then no one's children will! Alas, it seems that no mind can be flexible enough to wrap itself around the reasoning of narrow-minded. I mean, these protesters' points are not so wrong, the problem is merely that their reasoning is so not complete - and yet they take complete action!

    I wonder if ignorance must remain unaware of itself in order to survive...

  27. Fail by all posters so far on the issue by div_2n · · Score: 5, Informative

    The protesters are part of a group that are upset about gentrification. In the event that you don't know what that is, I'll explain since all the posters so far clearly didn't read the actual article (another day on /.). Quite simply -- it's when people with significant wealth and/or income move into an area of people with less wealth/income and thereby drive up real estate prices beyond what the established population can potentially afford. Hint: property taxes start going up and the established population can't afford to buy/rent a new place in their current neighborhood and possibly can't afford their current residence anymore and will be forced to move potentially far from where they currently live. For families, this is a non-trivial challenge.

    They've been protesting Google buses because this has put gentrification onto the fast track by making areas more attractive to Google employees that otherwise wouldn't have been due to transportation headaches. Getting a company funded ride straight to work is not a small deal.

    Note I'm not taking a side on the issue, just pointing out what's going on. Essentially you have people that can see the time coming when they will have to move and it's directly the result of Google and its employees. I won't use the word "fault" because that implies wrongdoing.

    The tactics of the protesters are clearly questionable, but I'll leave that up for the ensuing discussion.

    1. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Mr.+Spock · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This is why people are protesting. Love it or hate it, this is also the free market at work.

    2. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The protesters are part of a group that are upset about gentrification.

      Fighting gentrification is anticapitalistic. In the long term, you will always lose to it in a capitalist system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tough. gentrification sucks but is totally legal so suck it up and deal. Yes I was forced to move out of my area after it happened to me 15 years ago. I learned a new skillset and now that it's hapening in my new area I can cope and even turn it to my benifet. If others can't it's not my problem or responsibility..

    4. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit about you poor people. I work for Google and I'm better than you.

    5. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by div_2n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the risk of drifting to one side or the other -- I think you're oversimplifying. While gentrification is not a new phenomenon, this is one of the first times I've ever heard of people reacting so viscerally to it. I think the reason this stings so badly for existing non-Google employee residents is because it's not happening due to a new employer opening their doors nearby. If that were the case, existing residents could potentially get jobs there and afford the new normal.

      In this particular instance, you have an employer that is NOT nearby making the fact that this location is not nearby a non-issue for its employees and causing gentrification in a way that mostly leaves current residents out of the loop since it's not likely the average resident could get a job at Google. The results can be devastating situation depending. Some residents might only be getting by or barely getting ahead. Having to relocate could completely upset their financial balance in a way that they can't rectify.

      At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

    6. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please note that rising property taxes is not a big issue in California because of Prop 13, which prevents properties from being reassessed until their next transfer of ownership. People who already own houses in the neighborhood will not see their property taxes go up any more than they otherwise would. Prop 13 was passed specifically to prevent owners from being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes, and it does a good job. Gentrification may increase the cost of living in other ways (e.g. by replacing affordable local stores with more expensive ones) but it will also help the local city's finances and help to pay for better public services.

      The people who really lose out to gentrification are renters, who certainly can be priced out of their neighborhood. Even rent control and other tenant protections can be worked around, if nothing else by landlords selling to owners who plan to live there rather than rent out the property.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    7. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Essentially you have people that can see the time coming when they will have to move and it's directly the result of Google and its employees.

      You were doing fine until you got to this part. It's not the fault of the Google employees, it's the fault of the protestors. If they'd stop blocking new residential developments at every turn and trying to shorten the tall apartment buildings that do manage to get built, the city would stand a better chance of building enough housing stock to meet demand and rents wouldn't be so high in the first place.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    8. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the problem is that property taxes go up? Sounds like property taxes are the problem.

    9. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The thing is, what I don't see is what those people want to see happen. Google still needs those employees, and moving them to basically any other neighborhood will cause the same problem. The only way this wouldn't happen is if the buses only went to neighborhoods where the average family earned as much or more than Google employees, and that's not necessarily fair for those employees now is it? Plus, there aren't that many ways to make a neighborhood richer than to attract richer people in, and I think a richer neighborhood is ultimately a good thing - the standard of living is higher, there's less crime, more education, less pollution and littering, etc. You can deny it all you want but there's a heavy corellation between the two.

      I don't have an answer to what to do with those people getting eventually kicked out from their own neighborhoods, but I do think that protesting against the Google employees using the buses is the wrong way to get an answer.

    10. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot: The proud pimply ass of the Internet. What do you expect? They're wanna be hackers with no ethics to speak of.

    11. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by jamervg · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to use gentrification as leverage? If the gentrification is that severe (and it at least appears to be) then could the tech companies use that as a tool?

      One fun hypothetical: political influence. Want to unseat a politician? Plan more bus routes for the district and endorse the opposition. Over a timeline measured in years you might end up with some sort of quasi-gerrymandering, although instead of redrawing the boundary you redraw the population.

      btw: not actually worried about anything like that actually happening

    12. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Altus · · Score: 2

      There is a SHIT LOAD in this particular protest that has nothing at all to do with the gentrification issue that you describe. Even if it were about gentrification how does it help to protest one particular engineer and then call him out for his work on self driving cars like those are somehow related to the problem ever mind all the crap about pit mines in the congo and blaming this guy for them rather than any of the protesters (many of whom certainly own devices containing materials mined in the same exact way.

      Did YOU read the article?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    13. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Protesting is also totally legal, so suck it up and deal, no? Or does this only work one way...

    14. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I get the feeling you're a trust fund baby?

    15. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Funny, it sounded to me like a lot of posters had already read the previous article on the topic, understand what gentrification is, and continue to say 'fuck that.'

      Eh, potaytoe, potahtoe...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    16. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      I would think that existing residents that are Google material could get a job there and ride the bus. To me that impact doesn't seem much different than Google building a facility in their neighborhood. Other than for the builders of course.

    17. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by RR · · Score: 1

      The protesters are part of a group that are upset about gentrification. -- it's when people with significant wealth and/or income move into an area of people with less wealth/income and thereby drive up real estate prices beyond what the established population can potentially afford.

      And real estate prices wouldn't go up if the people who owned the properties refused to sell them at higher prices. And prices wouldn't go up if people weren't willing and able to pay the higher prices, which are exacerbated by China's pathetic retirement savings options and rampant corruption. I hear many complaints that whenever a property goes on sale, it's snapped up by some Chinese person with millions of dollars in cash. Since we don't outlaw capitalism, the best alternative would be to allow more living units to be constructed in the San Francisco Bay Area.

      Incidentally, due to Proposition 13, property taxes go up very slowly as long as you don't sell your house or do major construction to it. And due to rent control, rental prices in San Francisco go up very slowly. You get a fun combination of super-cheap housing from the 1970's, and super-expensive housing for new people.

      In a side note, this winter we got a lot less rain than average, and I'm starting to worry about our water supply. Building more housing units is a matter of public policy, but having enough water to keep them livable is currently outside human control. It would be funny if these tech giants would invest in desalination and water purification, not for third-world countries, but for their own homes around San Francisco Bay.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    18. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is it when in the 70's you had the inner cities spreading into the suburbs, if a neighborhood wanted to keep people from the inner city from moving into their neighborhoods for fear of running their property values down, this gets portrayed as a huge racism and civil rights issue, and you end up with things like Emmy-nominated All In the Family episodes pointing out how awful the neighbors are. Now, when you have middle to upper-class people moving into run-down neighborhoods, the locals call it "gentrification" and now THIS is the most horrible thing we can do as a society. Why aren't the people protesting slapped with labels like racists, classists, or whatever -ist you can think of with a bad connotation?

    19. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      It's a tough issue. As a tech worker in the Valley, I came here knowing I'd be moving into an area with one of the highest costs of living in the US. At the same time, I came in after a job that had a salary that was way above where I moved from. The people in SF are pissed because they were there during the tech market down turns when cost of living was lower, and now the influx of new jobs and economic prosperity means that the rent is going up as well. What's the alternative? Hiring freeze here in the valley? Export jobs to Arizona? Make them all live in Sunnyvale? (What about the people who live there and pay rent?). Shut down the busses and the SF workers will move back to the valley, which is already one of the most population dense areas in the US. Where the cheapest 60 year old 3 bedroom home you can find is ALREADY over 1/2 million dollars? I live in that house. And I know my neighbors don't want a huge influx happening any more then the folks in San Francisco. I guess the truth of the matter is... Deal with it, it's how the system works here. You want a cheap house and a low paying job that can afford it? Move to Vegas. You want an opportunity to live in the beautiful bay? Work hard, hand out resumes, and get a job in SV. Everybody resists change, especially if it doesn't benefit them, but change does and will happen, the wise choice here is to adapt, and only support the systems that you agree with.

      BTW, I totally support taxing the corporate bus routes for using the public bus stops in SF, and utilizing that money to improve SF's crappy public transit system. Wouldn't be a need for so many buses if Caltrain wasn't so damn expensive, or ran more frequently.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    20. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're armed - and gasoline for arson is cheap and plentiful to make your house burn. Good bye.

    21. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so clear it would seem, I understand the problems at hand, but I don't see why they take issue with Google et al instead of the zoning laws. We got similar issues but we don't bitch at the people buying/renting, instead we have to bitch at people not thinking it profitable 'enough' to build affordable housing elsewhere.

    22. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      You were doing fine until you made up facts you can't possibly know about a group of people. Does this group have a record blocking new residential developments? I'm sure you could point out the evidence supporting your assertion to me, right?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    23. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      ...property taxes start going up and the established population...possibly can't afford their current residence anymore and will be forced to move potentially far from where they currently live.

      Luckily, they're able to afford it with their real estate windfall and still have plenty of money left over to put away for retirement. This isn't such a bad problem to have for someone on a fixed income.

      But it would be better if property taxes were proportional to the property's actual burden on government services and not proportional to the assessed value of the property. Then these bubbles would have little to no effect on property taxes. California's Prop 13 attempts to achieve the same effect by limiting real estate assessment increases (for tax purposes) below the normal rate of inflation, but this makes the problem worse by pricing young people out of the real estate market. For example, as a recent homebuyer, I pay almost exactly five times as much in property taxes as my next-door neighbor who moved in 37 years ago.

      They've been protesting Google buses because this has put gentrification onto the fast track by making areas more attractive to Google employees that otherwise wouldn't have been due to transportation headaches.

      Gentrification occurs when a neighborhood in decline sees a lot of investment quickly. When a community invests in itself, outside investment has less of a gentrifying effect. Therefore, a person who protests against something because it might cause gentrification was probably part of the problem to begin with.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    24. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity the people who have to call you their neighbour. Are you an uncaring, selfish, asshole in person?

    25. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by kbolino · · Score: 1

      Government-backed home loans enable prices to skyrocket, and property taxes force existing residents out of their homes. There's nothing capitalistic about either of those things.

    26. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Excellent summarization of the protester's main concerns.

      To take a side in the matter, from what I've heard, the gentrification seems to be a problem entirely of their own making, with them now trying to have their cake and eat it too, since they want valuable homes without having to deal with the increased costs that come with them. San Francisco is notorious for how little new construction it allows and the standards by which that construction needs to abide, which has had the effect of ensuring that residential demand cannot keep up with supply. And much of that is due to NIMBY initiatives on the part of existing residents, who are unwilling to permit the building of cheaper housing that would help reduce supply constraints while lowering the value of adjacent neighborhoods. The result is that they have effectively priced themselves out of their own homes due to an overly-selfish desire to retain the value of their homes.

      As such, it's a bit hypocritical of them to complain about it. They made it clear that they wanted to keep the value of their homes high at all costs, and now they're going to be well compensated when they sell their homes, which is clearly in line with what they wanted. If they didn't want that, then they should have taken steps to ensure that their homes stayed affordable instead. They can't have it both ways, however, and they're just now figuring that out.

    27. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a big deal because it's white upper middle class people getting "gentrified" out of their neighborhoods. This is a rare occurrence and people matching that description tend to react with shock and dismay when the kinds of things that have happened to the lower classes for decades start happening to "real people" (in their eyes).

    28. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by giorgist · · Score: 1

      This is crazy, ok ... your property has skyrocketed in value. You suddenly are an asset millionaire but you can't afford your house. You like the fact that what used to be a run down neighbourhood with crime and poverty and cheap housing is now affluent. When you sell it, choose a house that was exactly like it was when you could afford it and you should be hunky dory with lotsa cash left over. It may suck a little, but the world keeps moving on, kids might step onto your lawn ... buy a rocking chair and a shotgun, this is America.

    29. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The protesters are part of a group that are upset about gentrification. In the event that you don't know what that is, I'll explain since all the posters so far clearly didn't read the actual article (another day on /.). Quite simply -- it's when people with significant wealth and/or income move into an area of people with less wealth/income and thereby drive up real estate prices beyond what the established population can potentially afford.

      It's sad for the people who are driven out, but this process is basically what stops cities from becoming Detroit. Regular renewal is needed to keep cities alive.

    30. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      The reason it's so visceral is because it's happening so quickly. And that's happening because housing stock is so limited. Complicating the issue is that transportation sucks so hard that there's nowhere else to go that isn't like being the other side of the moon. This is 30 years of bad policy coming home to roost.

      A few thousand new people with money really shouldn't be this disruptive.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    31. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by amorsen · · Score: 1

      This is an unfortunate policy though. It means that people who e.g. live in a large apartment because they have children stay in that apartment when the children move out. Selling and moving into something more manageable becomes uneconomical because of the reassessed property taxes. This in turn leads to a shortage of larger apartments for newly started families and thereby makes the housing problem worse.

      The policy may be necessary due to the massive changes happening at the moment, but it would definitely be worth considering whether there are other options. Ideally something which passes at least some of the value increase on to the renters if they choose to move out, so e.g. some retired people would be motivated to move to less congested areas.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    32. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by amorsen · · Score: 1

      You WANT bubbles to affect property taxes. That way the increased property taxes scare away some buyers and that will at least slow down the bubble.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    33. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prop 13 doesn't work quite that way. It's part of why CA real estate is so expensive. The market knows that the taxes can't go up, so it prices that in. That makes the house cost more, which makes the mortgages cost more. Even if you're renting this effects you because almost everybody in real estate uses some leverage. Prop 13 also works for commercial property. They never sell the commercial property, they just sell the LLC that owns the property and yes that's legal. So. You've got commercial property that hasn't seen a revised asessment since 1980. Oh but wait, it gets worse. All the money that's now going towards interest on loans is money that used to go to schools via taxes. California school performance has gone down this whole time (not that illegal immigrants and unions helped either).

      They could have just passed a law that capped assessments for seniors on fixed incomes, since that was the problem used to justify prop 13. but Oh NOES!!! SOCIALISM, so we got what we got.

    34. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real blame is on California voters who voted on the 1974 tax property exemption

      http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_Property_Tax_Exemption_and_Other_Tax_Revisions_(1974)

      captcha: CIVILIAN

    35. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Rock throwing at busses and impeding the traffic on public roads, I don't think that's generally legal, no? Plus harassing a single engineer working on a self-driving car is just silly.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    36. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who really lose out to gentrification are renters, who certainly can be priced out of their neighborhood. Even rent control and other tenant protections can be worked around, if nothing else by landlords selling to owners who plan to live there rather than rent out the property.

      Most people in San Francisco are priced out of the market. I saw one estimate that said 80% are renters. The recent census said something like 2/3 are renters. To me, this is merely a byproduct of too much concentrated wealth. There is a finite amount of money and right now more of it belongs to the rich. When the rich invest in real estate, it's the poor that suffer...

    37. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by geekoid · · Score: 1

      depends on where and how.
      These people seem to be stalking this guy, not just protesting.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I have no interest in defending this particular group (indeed, I find their targeting incompetent at best, and what they are up to may be dubious in other ways as well); but I wanted to call out the curious asymmetry in the grandparent post. Gentrification can be (and often... mostly... is) achieved by legal means, so quit your protesting (also possible to do entirely legally, under laws that aren't simply about suppressing protest, and often... mostly... done legally) and shut up.

      I don't know if they are associated with the ones that broke that bus window (gentrification-related tension is been a Thing in the area for some time, so there are a lot of distinct groups milling around) and I have no idea whatsoever why they choose the car guy (even by Google standards, you could find plenty of creepier projects, and never mind the segment of the tech industry that overtly makes and sells spook and suppression gear, often to unsavory actors).

    39. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

      Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?

      Talk about fault, what fault is there with Google or its employees? The process you describe will happen regardless of where Google goes (since it can only go where supporting infrastructure exists). So Google and other high paying companies are terrible, evil companies regardless of where they go? How about their employees? Are they only allowed to live in their own offices at work? Since apparently they aren't allowed to choose where to live based on the location, rents, etc.

      Sorry, but paying rent today (or for however long) does not entitle one to continue paying that same rent tomorrow and forever into the future. What you're entitled to is what's in your lease. If your lease says you can pay rent for the next 12 months at $1,000, there's absolutely nothing there saying you can pay that (or anything near that) 13 months from now. If you want the security of staying where you are, BUY; renting doesn't give you that and it shouldn't. This whole concept of some people being somehow entitled to continue residing in the same place simply because they've been there for a given period is patently absurd.

      Gentrification is a net positive for an area. It makes the area nicer, increases the tax base without altering the individual tax burden, reduces crime for that area, and helps stamp out poverty. It won't be a net positive for every resident and that's fine. No change ever makes everyone happy all the time and it doesn't have to to be a net positive. How many crime-ridden ghettos of NYC have been completely turned around by gentrification?

      Want to see a place without gentrification? Look at Detroit.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    40. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protesting is also totally legal, so suck it up and deal, no? Or does this only work one way...

      What these people are doing is not Protesting. They are a bunch of crackpots who are harassing a guy because he works for a company they hate. Most of what was in their fliers is either misleading or complete bullshit, the rest is rampant speculation.

      You have a right to peacefully assemble. You do not have a right to Slander a person, intimidate or harass a person.

    41. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fbartho · · Score: 1

      The grandparent post was hidden for me so I didn't see it till now. I get your point. It is a curious post.

      I think vandalism is a curious response to gentrification, it's like celebrating baseball wins by setting busses on fire, it just makes your own neighborhood worse :(. I count myself among the many people who would love to live in SF but can't justify the cost. Many people make the point that rent-control is great, but clearly the demand is high enough that the artificially restricted housing supply leads to ridiculous purchases of existing buildings just to destroy them and replace with condos that can never be rented. If taller buildings could be built, or the rent across the city could evenly rise, a few people might be priced out, but the interest in living in SF would be balanced across all housing. Is that a better idea than the mess we're in now?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    42. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Saying this does not connote approval; but team 'Pro Life' has spent some decades exploring the (ugly) details of exactly how much stalking and harassment you can mix into your 'protest' while staying under the first amendment. They've been pretty successful (though this is in part because they have major political clout, I suspect that all those fuzzy subjective tests totally mysteriously start working differently if you are from some unpopular outfit).

    43. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It has its ethical problems; but vandalism is a fairly pragmatic response to gentrification: violence tends to be bad for property values, and a reputation for violence against certain sorts of people tends to make those people reconsider moving to an area.

      It also works for whatever the opposite of gentrification is. Because in that instance the incumbents are the ones with greater power and wealth, they usually start with less overtly crass practices (a little redlining, say, is more effective, less visible, and probably less legally problematic, than throwing a brick...); but if that doesn't entirely work, a bit of violence can. The 'sundown town' is probably the most iconic example of this practice in the US.

    44. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by fbartho · · Score: 1

      I think we might be past simple vandalism. A couple busted windows and some graffiti is annoying but certainly doesn't seem enough to reverse the current gentrification trend. People nearly have walled gardens at office and home. There's enough interest and money around now that I bet it's more likely that people will figure out how to pay the cops to hang around the affected areas. More vandalism will just lead to more walled gardens, and if the cops don't enforce the law in broad daylight, no regular residents will be safe, either.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    45. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by russotto · · Score: 2

      Hint: property taxes start going up and the established population can't afford to buy/rent a new place in their current neighborhood and possibly can't afford their current residence anymore

      This is a problem in other places. Not in California; you can't be priced out of your current residence by property tax increases, thanks to Proposition 13 (which leftists hate BTW)

    46. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translating "clearly questionable" tactics like this into a national platform for their beliefs just encourages them to do even dumber things. Criticizing the trolls, or even better ignoring them, is the only acceptable response to this. If they want to propose actual reforms or protest in a vaguely coherent manner, then they can have their debate. Until then stop feeding the trolls.

    47. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?

      "Oh, I'm sorry, you're a teacher at a public school? Well, I'm afraid you don't have the right skills to live in this city.

      We don't accept teachers, librarians, machinists, longshoreman, sanitation workers or people working in construction within a ten mile radius of this area."

    48. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      But they COULD open a new cleaner, dentist, restaurant, car wash, etc. that the googlers could spend money at near 'home' making jobs in that community.

    49. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Hint: property taxes start going up and the established population can't afford to buy/rent a new place in their current neighborhood and possibly can't afford their current residence anymore and will be forced to move potentially far from where they currently live.

      No, because property taxes are fixed for life in San Francisco bay area and never go up once you've bought a place, so long as you stay there. Property taxes don't even increase at the rate of inflation, so they actually go down (in real terms) over time, for "established residents". Furthermore, your children can inherit your low property taxes and so pay tax rates from 50+ years ago (NOT inflation adjusted).

      Also, the established residents in San Francisco who are renters have rent control, and pay rents from years ago, whereas new residents must pay far higher rents.

      That is all part of the MASSIVE discrimination in california practiced by established residents against newcomers. Newcomers must pay most taxes, regardless of their income. I grew up near San Francisco, and I know many people in Belvedere and Tiburon (Belvedere is the richest town in the United States) who pay less than $1,000 per year in property taxes on houses than cost more than $5 million.

      What the protesters are advocating is further massive discrimination against newcomers and in favor of themselves. What the protesters want is the following. They won't allow the construction of any new urban housing, which is an obvious act of discrimination by itself since it is an attempt to determine how and where others may live. They want a fixed number of residents in dense urban areas, with the fixed number being THEM--everyone else is forced to live in the suburbs even if they want to live in dense urban housing. However, the protesters don't want to actually buy a place, thereby locking in their property taxes forever, because that would require saving money. Instead, they want their rents to be fixed for life, for them, but not for newcomers. Newcomers are people they want to kick out by force and harassment, by physically interfering with their lives and preventing them from going to work. The protesters even use derogatory terms for a class of people ("fuck techies") who they feel are interfering with their massive privileges, and the massive privileges of established residents. Furthermore, the protesters are not subtle about any of these things.

    50. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Informative

      I certainly wouldn't say that Prop 13 is an unalloyed good, but you're partly misunderstanding how it works. The assessment only goes up- or only goes up by more than 2%/year- when the property changes ownership, i.e. when it's sold or inherited, not when it changes occupants. This means it has the kind of effect you're describing mostly for owner occupied housing, not for rental apartments. What it really does is to give a tax advantage to owners who have owned a long time, whether they live in the property or not.

      It's also important not to exaggerate the importance of property tax in the overall cost of a property. Prop 13 also rolled back property taxes to 1% of the value of the property, and while there have been some tax increases since then, typical property tax rates in California are around 1.25%. If somebody wants to sell their house to move into a smaller house, a big jump in real estate prices will generally give them big windfall profits on the sale that will soften the blow of higher taxes on the new place. There's also a special clause that lets people over 65 carry some of the reduced assessment from their old house if they sell and buy a new place; value in their new house up to the sale price of their old house will be assessed at the assessment for their old house, so their taxes won't go up unless they're moving into a more expensive house.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    51. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by floobedy · · Score: 1

      people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own

      It certainly is through fault of their own! It's the protesters (and other far leftists) who are protesting and preventing the construction of new urban housing. That is why rents are going up--because of increasing demand and a fixed supply. It's the protesters (and the far left more generally) who directly caused the increased rents, and are causing it now.

      When the far leftists in California disallow the construction of any dense urban housing, it obviously implies that some people are not going to be able to live how and where they want. It means that there won't be enough dense urban housing for everyone. So now, the protesters wish to make sure that they are the beneficiaries, and not the victims, of the housing discrimination scheme which they set up. As a result, they wish to kick out newcomers by force, intimidation and harassment, whereas older residents are entitled to live in dense urban areas because of established privilege and because they were born in a certain region. Bear in mind that both groups of people could easily live in dense urban areas, but the protesters (and other far leftists) would never allow that, and they won't allow construction of new urban dwellings.

      In short, the protesters want two things: 1) there must be massive discrimination in housing with no new urban units, thereby driving up prices and pushing many people into suburbs; 2) the protesters and other established residents must be the beneficiaries of that discrimination, whereas newcomers and outsiders will be the victims of it and will be kicked out by force, intimidation, physical bullying, and outright discrimination against an entire class of people (nerds in this case; "fuck techies").

      it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

      They should direct their energy against themselves. In fact, everyone else should direct their energy against them. The protesters should stop preventing the construction of new dense urban housing, stop discriminating against newcomers, stop physically harassing people, stop using slurs ("fuck techies"), and allow more people to live in dense urban areas if those people prefer it.

    52. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Does this group have a record blocking new residential developments?

      They certainly do have a record of that. If you read their flyer, you would discover that one of the things they're protesting is the construction of new dense condos in Berkeley (new condos are apparently "sterile", as opposed to old ones for established residents).

      I'm sure you could point out the evidence supporting your assertion to me, right?

      Very easily, by simply reading the flyer and prose which the protesters have produced.

      Google wasn't the one forbidding the construction of dense urban housing in California. Google had nothing to do with it. It was the protesters specifically (who are doing that now) and other members of the far left.

    53. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent points. If Wikipedia is correct, the population has only grown about 6% since 2000. Granted it looks like this growth accelerated from 2010 to 2012, but it still should not have caused such huge issues. If transit were better and density weren't so pathetic, it wouldn't be such a huge issue. Although SF has its share of blame for poor transit and low density, it's really the even worse Peninsula and South Bay cities that are the cause of this mess. It's virtually impossible to build anything over a few stories in these cities, and many of them block transit improvements.

    54. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Google and other high paying companies are terrible, evil companies regardless of where they go?

      With the inequality skewed how it is right now, with zero signs of any change, yes, yes, they are.

      Have they atoned? Apologized? Mended their ways?

      Why should we support such endless, mindless greed on the backs of the vast majority?

      Talk about fault, what fault is there with Google or its employees? The process you describe will happen regardless of where Google goes (since it can only go where supporting infrastructure exists).

      Were Google just scraping by, you might have a point.

      Why is it that megacorps have no responsibility to anyone or anything, no consequences for their actions, and everyone has to bow down to them?

      You know what we call someone resting on millions who only goes where supporting infrastructure exists?
      A parasite and a leech. Mooching off of the rest of society. Cheap bastards who only want to take.

      Google could work with existing residents before moving in. They could be social and not be evil, as they say.

      Furthermore, why exactly is Google moving in? Why is this a given and assumed to be the only possible course of action?

      Why are you insisting that what some fictional non-entity does be prioritized completely above actual people and their lives?

    55. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Google and other high paying companies

      If the best thing Google has to offer is "high pay" then I'm not surprised people don't like them.

      What good do they bring to the area?

      More class war against the poor?

    56. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      In this particular instance, you have an employer that is NOT nearby making the fact that this location is not nearby a non-issue for its employees and causing gentrification in a way that mostly leaves current residents out of the loop since it's not likely the average resident could get a job at Google

      Basically, Good and its employees are using vast company resources to min/max the rental market and ordinary residents end up bearing the resulting resulting rising costs.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    57. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It may suck a little, but the world keeps moving on, kids might step onto your lawn ... buy a rocking chair and a shotgun, this is America.

      Thank you. I live on a back road that only got paved because some guy who lived on it became county commissioner. I ran over a chicken in the road once (hey, I tried to miss it) which turned into a spherical cloud of feathers behind the Astro van like something from a cartoon. The people who live there spray-painted SLOW DOWN on the road, looks like shit. No surprise that someone who didn't cash out while the cashing out was good (it's still good here, because this is the edge of the Emerald Triangle, but it's been better) can't paint a straight line, either. Idiots. Civilization will arrive eventually, you can either fight progress or you can move.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ignorance is funny. CA property taxes are set on the established population with Prop 13. Property taxes can't go up more than 1% a year.

      Rent is high for 2 reasons. First, rent control keeps roughly 30% of SF rentals off the market because once you start renting, you can NEVER evict (only 1x per property Ellis Act). Second, it's a desirable place to live, shit goes up, deal with it. You can live in Freemont for jack shit in comparison and take BART into the city if necessary.

      Learn a bit before you start spouting off.

    59. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      While google may not spend the money to open these stores (because they don't feel like running every possible business), these stores will and do regularly open and thrive as areas fill with people with more disposable income.

      If you want to see this in action, go look at the vast improvement in neighborhood services after gentrification in many New York City neighborhoods. Alphabet city now actually has services worth going to compared to 30 years ago. The reason these businesses weren't open before is because the previous residents could not afford to pay prices that support the convenience of those stores nearby. The nicest part of gentrification is that neighborhoods become nice.

    60. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      no, they don't. my home town had regular public marches by the KKK. And while the majority of the town was disgusted, it was their right to organize, pass out fliers, and stand on a soap box and shout their views for all to hear.

      If these protesters are not violating noise ordinances and are not physically harassing a resident, then it's fine. In the same way pro life protests work, there are legal boundaries and just because those in the neighborhood don't like to hear it doesn't make it legal or harassment. In fact, in my limited experience, gentrification protesters are usually far worse than Pro Life supporters, but I can believe I haven't seen the worst of either group.

    61. Re:Fail by all posters so far on the issue by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

      Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?

      Some people do have a sense of community, and like the town they live in, have family there, friends, etc... You can't expect Grandma to go back to school for her engineering degree with you, just in order to stay in the condo she's lived in for the last 30 years:)

      The entire notion that your community can be dissolved because of the whims of the market is not good for society. That said, I don't see any easy fix. But on a human level, you must understand how hard this is on long time communities.

  28. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Google probably does not want to run a public bus service. That is not their business. There would be many other legal, insurance and bureaucratic hurdles.

    Google does this for their employees. I can understand why everyone would want to ride on Google's luxury buses. Heck, I would like to. It must be frustrating that they pick up and drop off so close to your own endpoints. I can sympathize.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  29. Re:Thugocracy in Action by mlgunner · · Score: 2

    Well, "Anonymous Coward", you should follow the money. Who does it hurt, really, for tech companies to bus their own people to work rather than have them drive their cars? Its much better on the environment, less traffic on the freeways, and better for the workers.
    Its not that they are busing their people to work, is it?
    Its the fact that they are not using MUNICIPAL i.e. government owned buses that exclusively use unionized workers, specifically SEIU, which has a habit of using this very tactic.

  30. I'm boycotting Beverly Hills by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    I'd like to live there but it's too expensive. Maybe I need a bigger sign?

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    1. Re:I'm boycotting Beverly Hills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know who these particular protesters are (aside from seeming pretty awful), but your joke isn't pertinent. It's not outsiders who want to live in a place they can't afford, it's people who *already* live there, who are threatened with eviction due to changes in the value of housing. Very big difference.

  31. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously U Kant Read because:

    ...the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) voted for the first time to take action regulating Google, Facebook, Apple, and a number of other large tech companies that shuttle workers in private, Wi-Fi-enabled buses from the Bay Area to points south in Silicon Valley.

  32. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does San Francisco not run buses on the same lines? If not, the problem is with the city, not Google.

  33. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the Tech companies need to get the hell out of Commie-Fornia.

    They are no longer welcome, and that state HATES businesses with a passion.

    If California hates tech companies so badly, then one must wonder why there are so many out there. I'm thinking that it takes more than cheap rent to attract a vibrant start-up culture. Perhaps it takes investment capital and qualified employees too. And good weather doesn't hurt either.

  34. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    I started thinking to myself, "Wow, I only live a mile from where they pick folks up, and they drop me off about a mile from work" Maybe SF should take into consideration that non-goog-app-fac employees might want to ride on the same line. These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

    Better yet, have these tech titans fund some Bay Area high speed commuter rail.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  35. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Enry · · Score: 1

    Given those services are usually a money pit for the city in question (albeit a necessary one), they'd probably love to have that taken off their hands.

  36. Read TFA, still don't get it. by davek · · Score: 1

    I read through that entire sentence-fragment of an article, and I still don't see what people are protesting. Are they just OWS hippsters and neo-anarchists who will protest anything that isn't run directly by the state? Perhaps they just don't like the fact that some people have money? Surely it's not because some people choose to carpool. I don't get it.

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
    1. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by mlgunner · · Score: 1

      The point (object) is the protest, not the protesting of the point.
      Snappy one liner, but the idea is that convoluted. Where they are is the point. They are standing in some poor clod's front yard holding signs and yelling at him. Why? Because he is fortunate enough and skillful enough to have a nice job with benefits that he earned with his own hard work and education. Somehow that is "unfair" to the other people who live there because of "gentrification", which basically means his living there has benefited property owners by making their property worth more.
      Never mind that most of the "protesters" don't even live there.
      {sarc}Lets make an example of people who work hard and get an education! How dare they reap any benefits from it, and benefit their neighborhoods by not being "neighbor hoods"??!!{end sarc}

    2. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by taustin · · Score: 0

      I think they are, indeed, essentially OWS hippies (probably the same people, certainly the same lack-of-philosophy). What they are protesting is a) nobody gives them free shit, and b) they haven't had enough attention lately.

      They'd protest outside the offices of Google, but I suspect they have, and been completely ignored by Google, the authorities, and the press. And they can't stand being ignored. So instead, they start stalking individuals, in as threatening a way as they can without being arrested (cuz they can't smoke weed in the jail, even with a prescription), because the individual can't ignore them. They get a reaction, they make someone afraid of them, and that means they get to feel important. They feel, for a little while, like they matter, even though they know they really don't.

      Were I the guy who lived in that house, I'd be out there with my Google Glass, taking pictures of their faces for my blog, to see if anybody can identify them, and their street addresses. They can't even complain about it without admitting, under penalty of perjury, that they knew what they were doing was wrong.

    3. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >nobody gives them free shit

      You've internalized and regurgitated Republican derp. Don't do that unless you want to be as unpopular with intelligent, well-meaning people as they are.

    4. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry that you mind seems incapable of modeling things at the level of complexity they actually occur at.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    5. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Right and wrong are opinions. Your post is total bullshit, but the meter went off the scale when you said the word perjury.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by taustin · · Score: 1

      I have formed my opinion based on the words of OWS "protestors" in the news, generally quoted on programs with a distinctively friendly approach to reporting on them. I actively avoid Faux News, in fact, and all their kin.

    7. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by taustin · · Score: 1

      Filing a police report is done under penalty of perjury. These protestors/stalkers can whine, and would, about being treated the way they treat others, but any actual complaint will, indeed, be under penalty of perjury. To complain about being counter-stalked, they will have to admit they know that the behavior they have publicly engages in is illegal.

    8. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      >"To complain about being counter-stalked"

      First I've heard of that. I actually don't know what you're talking about now. Interesting.

      " they will have to admit they know that the behavior they have publicly engages in is illegal"

      Sorry, protest and assembly are protected by the 1st amendment. Any law that prevents this is de facto unconstitutional and would [hopefully] be SCOTUS'ed the fuck out of existence as soon as someone gets inconvenienced enough to actually go to SCOTUS over this.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    9. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by taustin · · Score: 1

      Did you even read you replied to? Let me recap: I suggested doing to them exactly what they're doing to the Google guy. Track them to their home, post it all online, etc. If they want to complain. etc.

      And California has some pretty specific laws about "protesting" outside someone's home, as well as some pretty strict anti-stalking laws (because Hollywood owns this state). That have withstood challenges many times in the past.

    10. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, protest and assembly are protected by the 1st amendment. Any law that prevents this is de facto unconstitutional and would [hopefully] be SCOTUS'ed the fuck out of existence as soon as someone gets inconvenienced enough to actually go to SCOTUS over this.

      Wonder how you'd feel about that if it were your home being picketed and you and your family being stalked and terrorized by a group of extremists accusing you of being a robot that's part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humans around the world.

      People have the right to assemble peacefully, to voice political opinions - peacefully - and to petition their government for change. What they do not have the right to do is stalk and terrorize people; especially those who are doing a perfectly lawful job at a lawful company.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    11. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Terrorize is subjective. Your post just terrorized me. I was scared for my life. You are very stern.

      Stalk is pretty subjective, too... If you want to get legal pedantic and talk California legal statute, I'd accept that. Though I must warn you I'd almost assuredly have a huge problem with the statute and, despite being fairly liberal myself (Obama == too far to the right for me!), would probably blame it on liberal pussydom.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    12. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      But honestly... Any law that says me & my associates can't stand, on public property, in front of someone's house and tell them how we feel IS anti-free speech. Just as the attempts to criminalize Fred Phelps are. Freedom is meaningless with people we agree with. No protections are needed to utter something that offends no one. Freedom's only meaning is when we disagree with someone's expression of it. Otherwise, it's just a happy coincidence. But I digress.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    13. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      From the flyer:

      "Fast forward to the present and Levandowski has bought
      a house for his wife and children near College and Ashby. In
      addition to this cozy two-story affair, Levandowski has also
      purchased a property on the corner of Dwight and Fulton,
      just one block from Shattuck Avenue."

      "Preparing for the action, we watched Levandowski step
      out of his front door. He had Google Glasses over his eyes,
      carried his baby in his arm, and held a tablet with his free
      hand. As he descended the stairs with the baby, his eyes
      were on the tablet through the prism of his Google Glasses,
      not on the life against his chest. He appeared in this
      moment like the robot he admits that he is."

      "As long as capitalism functions, everything it is connected to
      will be poisoned with its sickness. People like Levandowski
      are gentrifying neighborhoods, fl ooding the market with
      noxious commodities, and creating the infrastructure for an
      unimaginable totalitarianism. This is the evil that we stake
      our lives against."

      "Defend the land.
      Use your position in society—whether as a felon, a barista,
      an immigrant or whatever your experience—as your starting
      point for your revolt against it. Have courage. Find others
      who feel the same way and block a tech bus. Steal from the
      techies you babysit for. Take down surveillance cameras. Go
      hard: The time is now."

      They're stalking this man and his family, tracking his movements and his financial workings. They're calling him evil - the kind of evil they "stake [their] lives against". They're already advocating theft and violence against property. They're borderline advocating violence against this engineer. That's just from their flyer. Here's some more details from new stories:

      "At around 7:00 a.m. a group of activists say they went to the street where Google employee Anthony Levandowski lives in Berkeley to stage a demonstration outside his home. According to the activists, they rang Levandowski’s doorbell, then stood outside the house for about 45 minutes holding a banner that read “Google’s Future Stops Here.” They then watched Levandowski leave his home.

      The anonymous protesters then placed flyers under the windshields of cars in the neighborhood. The fliers include a photo of Levandowski’s home and a lengthy statement that describes the Google staffer as bringing evil into the world. The headline reads: “Anthony Levandowski is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and automation. He is also your neighbor.”"

      From a later statement from the group, "All of you other tech companies, all of you other developers and everyone else building the new surveillance state--We're coming for you next." Other news articles describe these protestors blocking the man's driveway for 45 minutes, effectively trapping him in his own home.

      Now put yourself in his shoes. You wouldn't feel threatened at all? I think most people would; especially with a family. They targeted him specifically, tracked down his home address, printed up flyers with his name and a bunch of other information about him, showed up at his house, rang his doorbell, blocked his driveway, and stated that he's the type of evil they'll stake their lives against. This isn't why we have a first amendment. This isn't stating an unpopular opinion or speaking truth to power. This is about terrorizing a family. They're hoping to terrorize him and other tech workers into quitting their jobs and staying home, hiding from the mobs of angry people threatening them and their families. This is sick, and these people should be stopped.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    14. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by floobedy · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry that you mind seems incapable of modeling things at the level of complexity they actually occur at.

      I have read your other comments here, and the parent poster is a hell of a lot smarter than you are.

    15. Re:Read TFA, still don't get it. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      "They're stalking this man and his family, tracking his movements and his financial workings. "

      I have no problem with this if his movements and financial workings are public knowledge. If something is there for me to observe, I am allowed to observe it, and report my observations. That is what a free press is, and it doesn't just mean reporting on celebrities and politicians, it means reporting on anybody you want.

      "They're calling him evil"

      All human beings should be allowed to state their opinion on whoever they think is evil. All human beings should be allowed to state their opinion on who they wish were dead. (coughcheneycough)

      "They're calling him evil - the kind of evil they "stake [their] lives against". "

      I find your analysis quite dishonest. The paragraph was about capitalism. He was an example of a person connected to it. He was one small part of the kind of evil they stake their lives against. Being willing to lay down your life to fight evil is one of the most sacred duties any human being can have. That you have a different definition of evil than other people is what makes you the same as all people: We all think different things are evil.

      "They targeted him specifically, tracked down his home address, printed up flyers with his name and a bunch of other information about him, showed up at his house,"

      And why would any of that be illegal or even immoral? How is this different from me printing up flyers telling my neighbors about a sex offender living near us? (No, we don't get notification otherwise.) The only difference is your subjective opinion about which people are evil.

      "This isn't why we have a first amendment."

      This is exactly why we have it.

      "This isn't stating an unpopular opinion or speaking truth to power. "

      1) You're disagreeing with the opinion yourself! It's definitely not popular. You're part of it not being popular.

      2) Speaking truth? Sorry, beyond slander and impeding an investigation, there is no legal burden to tell the truth. And those only apply to facts, not opinions. Furthermore, even with facts, lying is legal and cops do it all the time, legally. Your rights have nothing to do with whether or not you speak the "truth". And there is no such thing as an absolute truth for that which is subjective. Total red herring for you to even use that word unless we were talking about factual statements. Jesus man. Why don't we just appoint a bureau to define how reality is, then tell everyone who disagrees they aren't allowed to speak? Reminds me of prosecuting holocaust deniers for not stating the same truth. (For bias purposes, I'm only alive because my grandmother lived in a chimney that the gestapo literally looked down, but didn't see her, but would still defend a holocaust deniers right to state whatever he believes. I would, however, possibly throw a bottle at him when nobody's looking, and possibly rightfully go to jail if caught.)

      3) Also, they are speaking to power. Not that that affects whether you should be able to speak. If I want to find out where you live, go up to your front door, and hold up a sign telling your neighbors I think you're an asshole -- too fucking bad for you. Public space is for the public, not for you to lord over.

      I loved the part where you mentioned they blocked his driveway. Did you forget they have private buses pick them up? So he doesn't take a vehicle out of his driveway. So he was never blocked. Whoever bothered to denote that they blocked his driveway is a drama-queen playing martyr for them.

      "This is about terrorizing a family."

      Ahhh, so the fact that he has a family should afford him extra protections. Your must be a breeder to think like that.

      "They're hoping to terrorize him and other tech workers into quitting their jobs and staying home, hiding from the mobs of angry people threatening them and their families."

      You made that up and don't know that. That's what you think they are hoping, but neither of us

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  37. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by 228e2 · · Score: 1

    I think thats a great idea.
    They should expand this to other heavily traveled businesses and venues and high traffic areas throughout the city so even more people can have the chance to ride at a convenient time. Why hasnt anyone thought about this before???

    --
    Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  38. P*nis Envy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's got what they ain't.

  39. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Of course it's about unions. Look who is being targeted. What other possibilities are there? These smart-phone toting "protestors" aren't protesting working conditions overseas, that would be amazingly hypocritical. It can't be the greenies, these ride shares are getting single occupant cars off the roads. It's not going to be any Democrat groups, many of those targeted are going to be liberal Dems given the region of the country. Who is left other than organized labor? Who else would have an axe to grind against these workers?

  40. Re:Thugocracy in Action by admiralh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe are shuttled to work in their private Wi-Fi enabled comfort busses, free from having to deal with the riff-raff of society while the common folk are out their sucking on exhaust fumes.

    I can't imagine a scenario where this turns out badly.

    --
    Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
  41. Actually follow the link by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    Do actually follow the link. Don't worry; there is a great big picture with a few words, so you don't have to read much.

    The very first thing you should notice is that this is about more than property values. This is also, and perhaps primarily, about hate for technology and technologists. The black-and-white image of Levandowski's house doesn't say "so and so is pricing you out of your neighboorhood." It says:

    Anthony Levandowski is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and automation. He is also your neighbor.

    So at this point we should be all done soft-pedalling these people (a la this submission) as good but misguided folks in fear of "impact on the San Francisco Bay Area economy," or whatever. These are neo-luddite libtards fomenting hate and using surveillance to intimidate individuals.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Actually follow the link by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      an unconscionable world of surveillance [and] control

      You mean like having political activists publicising where you live so that anonymous mobs can threaten you for not obeying their political agenda?

    2. Re:Actually follow the link by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm baffled by why you would choose an autonomous vehicles researcher, rather than somebody actually dangerous; but isn't using surveillance to intimidate people who develop and operate surveillance systems a 'turnabout is fair play' sort of thing?

    3. Re:Actually follow the link by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Interesting--I had assumed you meant "soft-peddle," something like non-aggressively attempting to sell something. The dictionary defines "soft-pedal" as "to play something down; to de-emphasize something. (Alludes to the soft pedal on the piano, which reduces the volume.)"

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  42. rated yuk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    almost never ends? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crown%20royal%20zion%20balance&sm=3 if we keep going backwards again

  43. These people are fucking absurd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem isn't tech companies... the problem is that San Francisco just doesn't have enough housing!

    Byzantine regulations make it hard-to-impossible to rebuild or expand construction to include more units (this is pretty much the entire reason the whole "Twitter apartments" thing happened), and height and zoning limits keep large developers from being able to build enough high-density housing to meet demand.

    The only reason tech companies are even noticed is because they're one of the few industries that can reliably pay employees enough to afford to live there at all.

  44. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by hawguy · · Score: 1

    I started thinking to myself, "Wow, I only live a mile from where they pick folks up, and they drop me off about a mile from work" Maybe SF should take into consideration that non-goog-app-fac employees might want to ride on the same line. These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

    There are few people that live in SF and work a mile from Google HQ in Mountain View that aren't already Google Employees -- I'm sure there are some, but few would choose to do that commute if they didn't have the bus service -- the peninsula is so spread out that there just aren't that many employers close to each other, which is why transit is so difficult t here . It wouldn't even be worth setting up a program to let those few people reserve a spot on a bus and pay the fare (which would likely have to be in the $20 range to cover costs of providing the bus service and fare collection)

  45. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    So the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe are shuttled to work in their private Wi-Fi enabled comfort busses, free from having to deal with the riff-raff of society while the common folk are out their sucking on exhaust fumes.

    I can't imagine a scenario where this turns out badly.

    I can imagine one scenario -- if the buses stopped overnight and suddenly 30,000 people decided to drive to work instead of take a shuttle since public transit is so unusable for their commute. So instead of hundreds of buses, you'd have thousands of extra cars on the road.

  46. Re:Thugocracy in Action by mlgunner · · Score: 0

    Please, Rush is way too liberal for me, LOL!

  47. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by icebike · · Score: 1

    No, I think you'll find that cities guard their mass transit federal handouts "earned" by providing the least suitable services that just barely qualify, as if they were the goose that lays the golden egg.

    They even pulled their precious obsolete streetcars off the line for fear of looting and rampage after last week's Football game.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  48. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    Sounds like the Tech companies need to get the hell out of Commie-Fornia.

    They are no longer welcome, and that state HATES businesses with a passion.

    More likely the city of San Fransisco hates having to provide the infrastructure for all of the tech businesses but not reap the benefits of tax revenues to pay for it because they built outside the city. States have this issue all the time, where the populace lives predominately in one state but work in the next state. It's not about being anti-business, it's about having to pay for the services provided.

  49. The problem with Google Bus by Khopesh · · Score: 4, Informative

    So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

    I think you've missed the point. Dozens of companies in the peninsula have their own dedicated bus lines. The bus-to-person ratio is quite high, and this is not as eco-friendly as you might think. It also causes congestion in the city, and confusion at the shared bus stops (which are owned by the city of SF), both of passengers and of citizens looking for a bus they can actually ride.

    The city taxing the bus services allows maintenance to be applied to the extra load of the stops as well as planning for the increased traffic these systems create. I think it is quite reasonable.

    Daily Kos had a good explanation of the problem back in April.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    1. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      planning for the increased traffic these systems create.

      I would think that these system would decrease traffic since you have fewer cars on the road.

    2. Re:The problem with Google Bus by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this is not as eco-friendly as you might think.

      It easily beats having those people all driving themselves.

      It also causes congestion in the city,

      No, it reduces congestion in the city.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The city taxing the bus services allows maintenance to be applied to the extra load of the stops as well as planning for the increased traffic these systems create. I think it is quite reasonable.

      I don't think it is. The people on those buses already pay a shitload of taxes, many of them probably close to $1000/month in real estate taxes.

      If there really were too much congestion at the SFMTA stops, the city could solve the problem without any additional fees, simply by converting residential parking spots into bus stops. After all, when thousands of people commute by bus, many of the parking spots they have already paid for through their taxes aren't needed anymore.

    4. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Khopesh · · Score: 0

      Each employee takes, at most, one bus each way every day. Google sends buses back and forth all day long, even into the night and weekends. Yahoo and others have separate buses rather than pooling resources, so there are plenty of wasted seats compared to a unified bus system.

      As to congestion: Buses can't maneuver as well as cars, and cars tend not to roost next to bus stops waiting for their turn (even if they did, they'd fit, rather than blocking traffic nearby), so yes, they cause congestion. Read the Kos article for further detail.

      --
      Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
    5. Re:The problem with Google Bus by ClioCJS · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It doesn't necessarily beat having those people all driving themselves. Buses take a lot more fuel. It's only when they run at a certain capacity that you have ROI. That's not a given when picking up individuals. A single bus also causes a lot more congestion than a car -- it pretty much makes the entire lane behind the bus untenable in areas with lots of red lights. Again, it's only net-positive, congestion-wise, for a specific number of people.

      In case I'm unclear: I'd much rather be on a road with 1,000 people driving 1,000 cars, than 500 buses with 2 people in them. I used n=2 in this example, but I'm thinking even for n=6, it's a net loss. I don't actually know the value of n.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:The problem with Google Bus by jcr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If every bus was carrying one person, you'd be right, but they don't, and you're a moron.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:The problem with Google Bus by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the number and capacity of the busses is adjusted according to what the operators know about their client's needs?

      This isn't a government operation we're talking about here.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:The problem with Google Bus by ClioCJS · · Score: 2
      How does that work? They force their employees to live near each other? Say I live 5 miles out from any other employee. How is me having a vehicle to myself saving in congestion? I get what you're saying, and see how it can be applicable some of the time, but the fact of the matter is, a private bus won't let anyone on 'til it gets to its first stop. You've already lost there, as a proper bus would pick up all the people needing a ride from point A to point B. Imagine if every company did this. You'd have 100 buses driving by your house every day, each to pick up 1 person. Yeah, they might have some people on them. But the obvious way to delimit bus routes for maximum efficiency is geographically, not by employer.

      I used to ride a short bus to one school to get on a long bus to goto another. Maybe some gas was saved, but when half the bus ride was 2 kids on a short bus, it sure as hell didn't feel like it. ~10MPG on those things, and they're slow as fuck so people have to pass you all the time, meaning you're adding congestion. It definitely wasn't as efficient as the normal bus distribution of "this bus gets this neighborhood, that bus gets that other neighborhood". But since I went to school in another county.... My situation was actually somewhat similar to the Googlers here.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    9. Re:The problem with Google Bus by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I realize that it's easier to be an asshole than think and read, but failing to educate yourself makes you "just" an asshole.

      I live near Google and see these buses all the time. Many times these buses are empty, and driving to stops with no people. It's not a door to door limousine service, it's a bus route paid for by private funds. Just like any other bus service, there are peak and off hours. The difference between public and private is that routes can be changed when the pubic sees money being wasted. Google may keep a bus route for 1 person they believe "key" in a project, and reschedule buses at will.

      Buses are much larger than cars (obviously) and they block traffic and cause congestion which omits what they are supposed to be doing (relieving congestion and carbon emissions). When you have numerous buses blocking a lane for several minutes, it's not doing any one other than the company and employee any favors.

      In terms of city revenue, it also hurts. Tax revenue for cities that house these companies suffer as a result of people _not_ moving closer to work. They don't need to move closer to work, because they have a free shuttle service and get counted as working on the bus.

      It also makes the companies more money, because by shuttling people in they don't have to pay the same rates.

      The excuse that it's "Greener" is questionable at best, if not dishonest. It's convenient for the companies and more profitable for the companies. If you truly believe it's greener show me some stats that prove that since these bus services started there has been improvement in traffic in the bay area. You can't, because there has been no such improvement.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:The problem with Google Bus by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Those night and weekend buses must really mess up traffic.

      *sigh*

    11. Re:The problem with Google Bus by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      So the issue is that the corp buses as just as much jackasses as city bus drivers?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    12. Re:The problem with Google Bus by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It easily beats having those people all driving themselves.

      True, but what I think the protesters are thinking is that if companies eliminated the shuttles (or shrank their radius so that SF was outside of it), then most workers, rather than endure a multi-hour commute each day, would simply move closer to work (and, more specifically, outside of SF city limits). It might increase traffic in/around Mountain View, but the companies could run local shuttles with a 10-mile (instead of 35-mile) radius to alleviate that problem. But it would no longer be SF's problem.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    13. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those night and weekend buses must really mess up traffic.

      No, they just mess up the environment. Especially when they're empty or near empty. Same goes for thriftiness.

    14. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Diary, Visited San Francisco today. Got on the Wrong Bus. Ended up at Google. I now work for Google. Best. Day. Ever.

    15. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also causes congestion in the city,

      No, it reduces congestion in the city.

      Wow, both of those statements are true.

    16. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they're likely to be especially economical and helpful to traffic at precisely those times that traffic is the heaviest. And as far as traffic is concerned, the crossover is likely closer to n=3 or so, as that's primarily a function of the size of the vehicle. The crossover for fuel economy is likely at a higher n.

      That said, a modest tax on these private bus lines is perfectly reasonable and I fully support it. They are making use of a limited resource (bus stops), after all. And while it may make traffic better in the city overall, it surely does make things worse at those bus stops.

    17. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

      So these busses pay no registration fees, licensing fees, fuel taxes, tolls, congestion charges or any of the myriad other government fees a large vehicle has to customarily pay? Load on the bus stops?! C'mon now. Extra people standing at a bus stop could hardly be considered "load" vs. the normal environmental, vandal, etc.wear and tear they are subjected to. This sounds an awful lot like a union city transit agency trying to stronger competition out of the market to me. Mug like what happens in every other union dominated city with a salary bloated, inefficient, hyper expensive city transit authority. In my own home city, nearly every large business, university, school district, retirement home, even community developers run their own bus system to key points of interest because the incumbent county transit authority system is too slow, too expensive, and has a route system that doesn't suit the needs. If a company finds it more efficient and cheaper to run their own transit system where one already exists, there is a REASON for that!

    18. Re:The problem with Google Bus by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " so there are plenty of wasted seats compared to a unified bus system."
      incorrect. Even unified bus systems run empty or near empty most of the time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:The problem with Google Bus by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      this is not as eco-friendly as you might think.

      It easily beats having those people all driving themselves.

      It also causes congestion in the city,

      No, it reduces congestion in the city.

      -jcr

      No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.

      Basically, it creates an inefficient working population living far from their place of work.

      Chances are, far more would choose to live closer if they had to take public transit or drive their own car.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    20. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " so there are plenty of wasted seats compared to a unified bus system." incorrect. Even unified bus systems run empty or near empty most of the time.

      Of course public bus systems have empty seats, but they're not exclusive: Compare one empty public bus to five empty corporate buses. Which one has more wasted seats?

    21. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Chances are, far more would choose to live closer if they had to take public transit or drive their own car.

      No.

      If you've Google on your resume, you can name your price and get snapped up at any outfit anywhere in the Bay Area in a heartbeat.

      People choose to live in SF because it's a decent enough place to live (Ed Lee notwithstanding). People submit to the commute to MV because they believe in the project that they're working on.

    22. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having each of those people drive themselves isn't the only alternative. If each of those people rode in a fuller bus instead of a less-full bus, it would be more eco-friendly, assuming the buses are at least somewhat close in their emissions.

      It would also reduce congestion in the city further.

    23. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Chances are, far more would choose to live closer if they had to take public transit or drive their own car.

      No.

      If you've Google on your resume, you can name your price and get snapped up at any outfit anywhere in the Bay Area in a heartbeat.

      People choose to live in SF because it's a decent enough place to live (Ed Lee notwithstanding). People submit to the commute to MV because they believe in the project that they're working on.

      People live in Mountain View, Los Altos, Palo Alto or Menlo Park because they're "decent enough" places to live.

      People insist on commuting from the city to Mountain View, because they're in their twenties with no obligations, think it's trendy to live in the city, and don't really have to take responsibility for it due to a door-to-door shuttle service.

      If you want trendy restaurants, hip night-spots and nice pubs, go to fucking Palo Alto. This hipster obsession with the city is basically a result of recent East Coast transplants who know nothing about the Bay Area.

    24. Re:The problem with Google Bus by zieroh · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No, I agree. You're a moron.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    25. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Googler here. I can't speak for all the buses, but my bus is almost always close to full.

    26. Re:The problem with Google Bus by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Buses are much larger than cars (obviously) and they block traffic and cause congestion

      Cars are larger per traveller than buses. If the bus has 2 people or more on it, it takes less space on the freeway than a car. Cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper, so two people driving separate cars take a lot of space, whereas only two people on the bus are perhaps 30 feet from each other.

      Tax revenue for cities that house these companies suffer as a result of people _not_ moving closer to work.

      But tax revenue is helped in the dense urban areas where the employees move to. If people move from San Jose to San Francisco, it doesn't cause their tax contribution just to disappear. Instead, the taxes are paid somewhere else. In this case, the taxes are paid in a dense urban area which contributes to public transportation rather than the endless roadways in SJ where the taxes were going before.

      The excuse that it's "Greener" is questionable at best, if not dishonest.

      Residents of dense urban areas typically emit less than 1/3rd the CO2 of suburban residents. It is not helpful to prevent the construction of dense urban housing (which the protesters are doing). Nor is it helpful to protest a bus.

    27. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is not as eco-friendly as you might think.

      It easily beats having those people all driving themselves.

      It also causes congestion in the city,

      No, it reduces congestion in the city.

      -jcr

      You provide no proof. GP's argument isn't "duh, 1 bus is worse than 80 cars!" it's "80 bus lines on the same street might be worse than 79..."
      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pushcart_War for a good kids book reference.

    28. Re:The problem with Google Bus by floobedy · · Score: 1

      How does that work? They force their employees to live near each other?

      No, but buses facilitate people living in dense urban areas which allows them to walk to bus stops, and bus operators can increase or decrease the number of buses based upon the number of people at a stop on average. Living in dense urban areas is what allows shared rides.

      Say I live 5 miles out from any other employee

      The buses have allowed the employees to live in San Francisco, which is densely populated, and which is 8 miles across, from one end to the other. Almost all the google employees live in the northeastern quadrant of the city and so almost all of them live within 5 miles of each other.

    29. Re:The problem with Google Bus by floobedy · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.

      Except silicon valley is a massive sprawl of parking lots and freeways, like Los Angeles. So the employees still wouldn't live very close to their place of employment, but the sprawl would prevent them from using shared modes of transportation. Also, the sprawl will force them to drive long distances to perform everyday tasks like going to the supermarket.

    30. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.

      Except silicon valley is a massive sprawl of parking lots and freeways, like Los Angeles. So the employees still wouldn't live very close to their place of employment, but the sprawl would prevent them from using shared modes of transportation. Also, the sprawl will force them to drive long distances to perform everyday tasks like going to the supermarket.

      Silicon Valley is a relatively efficient conglomerate of many different neighborhoods, each with numerous local restaurants, supermarkets and entertainment venues.

      I don't know where you got the Los Angeles comparison, but it's not even close to being true.

      "The sprawl will force them to drive long distances" ...what? Google's headquarters are right across the freeway from suburban Mountain View, a distance of less than a mile. The local Whole Foods is less than a 10 minute drive from their headquarters.

      I could go on about the numerous grocery stores, restaurants and cafes, but, really, you just don't know this area if you think an employee would need to live far from their work.

    31. Re:The problem with Google Bus by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      You're all missing the real solution. Live in a place with only 80,000 people. We have 3 of the same hardware store within 5 miles but basically no crime, no subways, no bus problems, no super corporations causing issues, no stuck up psychotic rich "activists," no smog, and almost no racism and racial separation by geography.

    32. Re:The problem with Google Bus by s.petry · · Score: 0

      Cars are larger per traveller than buses. If the bus has 2 people or more on it, it takes less space on the freeway than a car.

      You not only show extreme ignorance, but a failure to correct that ignorance with a basic web search. This is a basic geometry problem and you are WRONG! A bus is at least 60' long by 8.5'. A mid sized car can not exceed 15.6' by 5.5', so we can use the max as the "average" car though in the bay area there are many more smaller cars than mid or large sized cars.

      I think from there you can do some basic geometry and see that you are completely wrong. 510sq ft vs 85.6sq ft per passenger car means you have 6 people per bus to save space.

      Now if you look at emissions that those 2 people have in a bus vs. a mid-sized car, there is still no comparison. The large diesel engines are not "clean" by anyone's standards.

      This does not even address the main issue people have with congestion, which is that these buses block traffic by stopping in lanes to load and unload in addition to using the bus stops and blocking municipal bus services. They can not accelerate like a car, or brake like a car, so impede traffic much more than 6 cars would do.

      Not surprisingly, your tax statements miss the mark completely. I already had to explain basic geometry for you, so I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the differences between city, county, state, and federal tax revenue.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re:The problem with Google Bus by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      +1 Finally, a sensible post.

    34. Re:The problem with Google Bus by elbonia · · Score: 1

      "Google may keep a bus route for 1 person they believe "key" in a project" I find that very hard to believe. Do you have a source for that statement? If a person is that key they would just get a town car to take him to and from work. It would be far cheaper than renting a bus & driver and more convenient for the "key" employee.

      If you don't move closer to work it doesn't mean that more tax dollars won't be spent in the city. Since more people live in the city they will naturally spend more as they go out. After all that was the whole point of living there in the first place. Also SF has been raking in more and more in property taxes since the bus system was in place and now property tax revenue is at an all time high.

    35. Re:The problem with Google Bus by jcr · · Score: 1

      I realize that it's easier to be an asshole than think and read,

      I'll have to take your word for it.

      The excuse that it's "Greener"

      What's to excuse?

      It's convenient for the companies and more profitable for the companies.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not, and you're an idiot.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that work? They force their employees to live near each other?

      Didn't some Chinese company try that and people got all upset?

    37. Re:The problem with Google Bus by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      More likely that Google would build an office in SF (raising land prices even higher). Some tech companies have done that already.

    38. Re:The problem with Google Bus by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Typical engineer response, in that you completely missed the point of his post and went to vehicles dimensions as a nice attractive mathematical proxy. He said they take up less space on the freeway not that they are longer. Why does the difference matter, because you don't drive with your bumper touching the vehicle in front! Let's take a conservative example and assume that vehicles are travelling at 30mph on the freeway. In theory they should stay about 30 metres apart, but being realistic they're probably closer to ~10 metres apart. So the space on a freeway occupied by two cards (that are way too close to each other) travelling at low speeds is two car lengths and 20 metres. If a bus is less than 1 car length and 10 metres longer than an average car then it is taken up less space on the freeway.

    39. Re:The problem with Google Bus by N1AK · · Score: 1

      They will certainly have a negligible impact on the environment vs employees commuting in cars. Obviously some would move closer without the bus service but thousands of employees doing a short commute will still have far more impact on the environment than a couple of buses running empty or near empty overnight.

      Supposedly the protests are motivated by tech company employees living in the city but working a long way away. This means they are increasing demand for housing and thus the cost of housing. It isn't an environmentally motivated protest. Personally I think they should like a bit harder in the mirror and realise that it is their own resistance to building more housing and spending money on better transport infrastructure that is the problem.

    40. Re:The problem with Google Bus by N1AK · · Score: 1

      In case I'm unclear: I'd much rather be on a road with 1,000 people driving 1,000 cars, than 500 buses with 2 people in them. I used n=2 in this example, but I'm thinking even for n=6, it's a net loss. I don't actually know the value of n.

      I don't think anyone would suggest that buses with two passengers would be better than cars with one. But is anyone really suggesting that on average these buses aren't running with considerably more passengers? Furthermore removing 30 cars each from the road during heavy commuting times is a big benefit even if it means a couple of buses running around with ~0-5 passengers during the night etc.

    41. Re:The problem with Google Bus by floobedy · · Score: 1

      I think from there you can do some basic geometry and see that you are completely wrong. 510sq ft vs 85.6sq ft per passenger car means you have 6 people per bus to save space.

      Man, read and understand what you're responding to.

      I was pointing out that cars do not travel bumper-to-bumper. They must leave at least a few cars' distances between cars, depending upon the speed. If each car has only one driver, then there must be several cars' worth of space on the freeway for each driver.

      If there are two cars (each with one driver) and two car distances between them, then the two cars (with the distance between them) exceed the length of the bus on the freeway, by your own figures, even when the traffic is moving fairly slowly.

      I pointed that out to you, very clearly, in the original post. In fact, that was the point I was making. Somehow, you failed totally to understand it. It would be one thing if you had provided a counterpoint, but you didn't even GET it.

      Also, you failed to use the relevant calculation anyway. It's the length of the vehicle and the spaces between vehicles which matters, not the area, as long as the vehicle is narrower than the lane it occupies. Even if a car is much narrower than the lane it occupies, it still takes the entire lane.

      You not only show extreme ignorance, but a failure to correct that ignorance with a basic web search.

      You're an idiot. Not just with regard to that post, but your earlier post also.

      If you truly believe it's greener show me some stats that prove that since these bus services started there has been improvement in traffic in the bay area.

      No, because there has been an increase in population in the bay area, and other changes besides. It's obvious that you cannot determine whether buses have helped by just comparing the level of traffic across the two periods.

      This does not even address the main issue people have with congestion, which is that these buses block traffic by stopping ... and blocking municipal bus services.

      No, because the congestion is along the 101 corridor, and not in residential bus stops which are rarely congested.

      I already had to explain basic geometry for you,

      No, you failed to carry out basic geometry because you forgot to include a factor which had just been pointed out to you, and you also did not use the relevant calculation anyway.

      I'm not wasting more time trying to explain the differences between city, county, state, and federal tax revenue.

      No, because the question was whether googlers would live in San Francisco or silicon valley, and whether they would deprive a locality of their tax revenues. Obviously, federal taxes are not relevant here since those are income taxes, which are the same regardless of which of the two localities the googlers reside in.

      You're a moron.

    42. Re:The problem with Google Bus by N1AK · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.

      I don't really see what the issue with this is. I would be a little surprised if the transport carbon footprint of a googler using these buses was higher than someone doing a 10 mile commute in a car. If they want to live in San Francisco then why do they deserve to live there less than anyone else? It sounds like one group of current residents has decided that they want to the city to cater to their needs at the expense of the needs of others and I don't think that is a particularly reasonable position.

    43. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off-topic, but do you have an opinion about Prop 13? I wish we had something like that in Washington state.

    44. Re:The problem with Google Bus by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A bus is at least 60' long by 8.5'.

      Who told you that?

      Now if you look at emissions that those 2 people have in a bus vs. a mid-sized car, there is still no comparison. The large diesel engines are not "clean" by anyone's standards.

      Not all buses run on diesel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:The problem with Google Bus by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Man, read and understand what you're responding to.

      I did, and it was made obvious.

      Cars are larger per traveller than buses. If the bus has 2 people or more on it, it takes less space on the freeway than a car.

      Is what you started with, and it's wrong. It does not take an engineer or a "typical engineer response" to be wrong, it takes junior high level knowledge of geometry to know you are wrong.

      Your insinuation that the buses are only on 101 is also wrong, as is your knowledge of taxes. Your ignorance perfectly explains your use of ad hominem, it's the only way for you to feel intelligent.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    46. Re:The problem with Google Bus by s.petry · · Score: 0

      So by your logic, a car can't be 15' long it's as long as the actual length plus the "safe area" that you can change at will to suite an invalid argument. Where your logic is completely broken is that you only add the safe distance to the cars and not the buses, genius! Great skills with repeatable and reasonable logic you have there. You should realize that traffic simulators show you are wrong also, because of the acceleration and braking issues I mentioned.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    47. Re:The problem with Google Bus by floobedy · · Score: 1

      Your insinuation that the buses are only on 101 is also wrong,

      That's not what I said, at all. READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. What I said is that congestion is worse on the 101 than at residential bus stops.

      ...Is what you started with, and it's wrong.

      READ AND UNDERSTAND what you're responding to. The very next sentence I wrote explains that cars take more space when you include the space between the cars.

      it takes junior high level knowledge of geometry to know you are wrong.

      It may require only "junior high level knowledge" to get the right answer, but you still screwed it up. You did the calculation incorrectly, and you made two separate mistakes, as two separate people have pointed out to you now.

      Your ignorance perfectly explains your use of ad hominem, it's the only way for you to feel intelligent.

      Speaking of ad hominem, here is your first sentence in this thread (which you said to someone else):

      I realize that it's easier to be an asshole than think and read, but failing to educate yourself makes you 'just' an asshole.

      Apparently you didn't even realize that your remarks about "ad hominem" would apply to you especially.

      You need to read more carefully, understand what you're reading, and think before posting.

    48. Re:The problem with Google Bus by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      More likely that Google would build an office in SF (raising land prices even higher). Some tech companies have done that already.

      They've already done that but it's nowhere near as big as the Googleplex in Mountain View. That aside, at least then they're paying SF city taxes. Also, I don't know if they have employee shuttles for their SF office or if their employees just take Muni like everybody else.

      It would be ironic if a Google employee waiting for a Muni bus on his way to the SF office was delayed by a Google bus blocking the bus stop while picking up for a trip to Mountain View.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    49. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most cases these people wouldn't be taking the public city bus. They'd be driving personal vehicles.

    50. Re:The problem with Google Bus by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I never gave a number and said X busses = X cars. I stated that the number 2 was wrong, and under no circumstances would be it correct. Traffic simulation will show you very easily the same thing that basic geometry will show you. 2 cars is not less than 1 bus, and never will be.

      The actual numbers would vary depending on numerous factors. This is what traffic simulation is for, and there are numerous programs both commercial and private that do just this.

      You are trying to argue that I'm wrong about claiming someone's fabricated number 2 is wrong, yet there is no science that will show 1 bus is less than or equal to 2 cars in traffic. None, anywhere! Your imagination may show that, but science will not. Your imagination has been the whole of this debate. Imaginary tax rules, imaginary sizes of vehicles, and imaginary traffic rules. There is no possible way to debate your imagination, so there is no more to debate.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    51. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to ride a short bus to one school

      Well, there you go...

    52. Re:The problem with Google Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also causes congestion in the city,

      No, it reduces congestion in the city.

      Have you seen those buses try to navigate city streets? Not two days ago, I saw one start to make a right turn shortly after its light turned green. It couldn't because the corner was too tight; it simply wasn't designed for buses. The bus had to wait the entire cycle, until opposing cross-traffic could clear so it could cross the double yellows. That also took the full cycle, so at most two cars got to follow the bus. Traffic was disrupted for three out of four directions for an entire cycle each, so one bus could make one turn.

      Sure, driving to work causes congestion. Busing causes a different kind of congestion. When the people setting the routes can't be bothered to make them practical, we can't dismiss that so readily.

    53. Re:The problem with Google Bus by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      I live near Google and also work there. The bus stops are not anywhere near campus, as they are only intended for people with long commutes where pooling makes sense. I live 7 miles from my building, which is bikable and drivable, so no bus stop or bus for me. What you see around campus is empty buses during the day because they need somewhere to hang out between the morning and evening rush. I think you might be misinterpreting this as how they always look.

      They are not driving them empty up and down the peninsula all day. Sometimes during rush hour there is one direction that'll be almost empty, but in those cases there are a *lot* of people the other way.

      Many-to-one transportation systems (like corporate shuttles) are much easier to run efficiently than many-to-many systems (like most city buses). This is why systems use hubs -- even though they take you well out of your way, they are cheaper for the carrier. But in the case of a shuttle, the hub *is* where you want to go, so there is no loss of efficiency.

  50. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by mlgunner · · Score: 1

    Ahem..
    BART!?

  51. From the Activists' Flier... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Nautilus Group is composed of designers and builders who have created military installations, malls, and hospitals.

    Oh God! Not military hospitals! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

    1. Re:From the Activists' Flier... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The Nautilus Group is composed of designers and builders who have created military installations, malls, and hospitals.

      Oh God! Not military hospitals! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

      Was military supposed to be distributed to mass and hospitals there? I think it was "miiltary institutions", "malls", and "hospitals".

      Otherwise, what is a military mall?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:From the Activists' Flier... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, what is a military mall?

      I assumed they were referring to base exchanges

      . If they're actually protesting hospitals in general, this makes it even more ridiculous.

  52. Re:Not wrong, just ignorant. Not unimaginative, ju by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

    no, they are wrong, 100%. industrial uses of precious metals are a tiny fraction of the demand, and NOT what drives most of the practices people find abhorrent. Should we give up on technology because a lot of women(and men) like gold and diamonds? or maybe we should stop feeding the beast by validating a love for shiny crap.

  53. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by supervillainsf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except for the fact that there is no city bus that runs from San Francisco or Berekely to Mountain View, so the competition would be with CalTrain which is owned by Amtrak. As for Bus service, anyone who does the SF - South Bay commute will be familiar with Bauer's busses and they are a private company doing exactly what you are saying can't be done. So, the whole "can't compete with gubment" thing is a bit stupid in this context.

  54. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because having a whole bunch of high earning software developers paying income, property, sales, and liquor taxes within the city isn't enough.

  55. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're rich and powerful, it's much easier to whine about how complainers should pack up and move if they don't like what you're doing to their city, rather than pack up and move if you don't like what activists are doing in their city. Why should big businesses be subject to the same rules they expect the peons to follow? If a big business doesn't like what a city/state/country is doing, then clearly the city/state/country needs to change its practices instead of the poor, beleaguered billionaires.

  56. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, I didn't count that as it seemed only related to the other Google-related protesting going on.

  57. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fact that the Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Genentech etc buses exsit at all is just a demonstration of the abject failure of SF Bay Area's public transportation system. This could have easliy been done by SamTrans, or Caltrain, or BART, MUNI or some combination. But those entities are too caught up in their inane union rules and they retarded management. Or Ed Lee who would rather make Muni free, and still crappy, rather than fix it. The politics around public transport are ridiculous. Everyone wants a piece of that big-money pie.

    I live 1 block from the J Muni, but would rather ride my bike because Muni is uterly unreliable. For my spouse to get to Palo Alto she is stuck in a two transfer Muni nightmare to Caltrain, so mostly she drives.

  58. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 0

    Of course it's about unions. Look who is being targeted. What other possibilities are there? These smart-phone toting "protestors" aren't protesting working conditions overseas, that would be amazingly hypocritical. It can't be the greenies, these ride shares are getting single occupant cars off the roads. It's not going to be any Democrat groups, many of those targeted are going to be liberal Dems given the region of the country. Who is left other than organized labor? Who else would have an axe to grind against these workers?

    Maybe the people who both live and work in the city, and have done so for years, who suddenly find they can't afford to live there anymore due to new people who spend 90% of their time outside the city being hired by companies outside the city and provided with free transportation to their rental units.

  59. Congradulations by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Now you have hundreds more cars on the roads.

    I mean really, what can they possibly hope to gain? Without the buses there would be many more cars on the road, or these people would move and local businesses would lose out on the disposable income.

    1. Re:Congradulations by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      They hope the Google employees will move when faced with a drive, making housing affordable again. It's an understandable desire, though I disagree with their methods.

  60. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Ahem..
    BART!? /blockquote.

    I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! There's no way they can prove anything!

  61. Ya ask me this is only the beginning. by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Ya ask me this is only the beginning. the gap between those who have and those who have not is going to fuel hate as you've haven't seen in well over 10,000 years. IMO

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  62. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by arctus · · Score: 1

    One question...why? If I worked at Google I wouldn't want you on my bus. Google is a big machine. As someone who also works for a big machine, I'm only here for the perks and I have no interest in sharing with outsiders. You want my perks? Come break your back with me and work 60 hours a week...then the bus rides, free food, nap pods, etc. will seem less like privileges and more like justifications for your insanity...

  63. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because having a whole bunch of high earning software developers paying income, property, sales, and liquor taxes within the city isn't enough.

    San Francisco has no income tax.

    They've long enjoyed being an employment center for the area so instead of a payroll tax paid by employers rather than an income tax. But the protesters aren't complaining about taxes, they are complaining that high paid employees are driving up rents and making the city expensive. However, if large employers continue to bus employees out of the city for jobs, then I'm sure SF will revisit the income tax issue.

  64. Move by rlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Google, Apple, and Facebook are not welcome in the San Francisco, I'm sure there are a lot of other places that would welcome them.

    For instance, taxes and cost of living are much lower in Ohio. Plus we have all this lovely snow.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Move by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Cuyahoga river.

    2. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the Cuyahoga river.

      Link, please!

    3. Re:Move by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That sounds perfect for data centers...

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I'm in Camden, NJ and we can desperately use an influx of employers. Philly right across the river and NY/DC within driving distance. Local residents would be thrilled if a large employer moved in.

    5. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just be careful if you go to the next Pixar flick at the local AMC wearing your Glass.

    6. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not in San Francisco. That's why they have buses come into the city to pick up their employees.

    7. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I'm in Camden, NJ and we can desperately use an influx of employers. Philly right across the river and NY/DC within driving distance. Local residents would be thrilled if a large employer moved in.

      Look, I feel for you, as someone who lived in New Jersey for years, I know it can be tough.

      But, comparing Camden fucking New Jersey to San Francisco?

      Are you out of your fucking mind?

    8. Re:Move by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Local residents would be thrilled if a large employer moved in.

      And then they'd murder them. Camden needs a do-over, from the beginning.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google, Apple, and Facebook are not welcome in the San Francisco, I'm sure there are a lot of other places that would welcome them.

      For instance, taxes and cost of living are much lower in Ohio. Plus we have all this lovely snow.

      You want snow? Let me introduce you to Syracuse, NY. Plus we have high taxes like California so the techies will feel right at home.

  65. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That could actually be a net win for long time residents since the Googlers would move closer to work and rent in the city would fall back to affordable levels.

  66. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by RR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does San Francisco not run buses on the same lines? If not, the problem is with the city, not Google.

    The problem is with the entire region. San Francisco buses can only run in San Francisco, with limited service to a couple recreational areas a few miles away. The rest of the region doesn't want to get caught up in San Francisco's myriad governance issues, so they operate their own transit systems. There are only a couple systems that cross the entire region: BART and Caltrain.

    So, to get from my home to Google via existing transit lines, I'd have to take a bus to Caltrain, then take Caltrain to Mountain View, and then take a bus to Google. The pretty good regional trip planner says that it would take me 4 buses, 2 hours, and $13 to get from my home in San Francisco to Google, even with rush hour express service. It's cheaper if I get monthly passes and take my bike onto Caltrain, but it still takes a lot of time.

    --
    Have a nice time.
  67. Re:Thugocracy in Action by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Just like the earth's climate can change, so can the business climate of a state, and California's has. Momentum will carry things for now, but the state seems determined to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

    And if you think the San Francisco Bay Area has cheap rent, you are way off base.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  68. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    That is a completely different ball game. You know how much work they would be adding, with insurance, and 30 times the number of busses, and now their is no room to work, and the baby crying is interrupting the meeting they are trying to have.

    That is like the worst idea I have ever heard.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  69. defeating public transit, insultation, privilege by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

    Showing up at the doorstep of a engineer whose work has nothing to do with the shuttles is moronic, but objecting to companies running massive private transportation for the wealthiest people (most Google employees fall firmly into at least the top 4%, more like 2% or less) is not "moronic" and it's not too hard to see their points (they have several.)

    On the most practical point: you see Google "being too eco-friendly"; I see them sucking away demand from public transit busses that employees would've taken otherwise. In the US public transit has to magically justify its existence whereas bridges, roads, airports, etc are massively subsidized without blinking. If all the Google employees start taking Google busses instead of the "358 bus" (I made that number up) from a particular neighborhood into SF, then the only people left are the contractors and non-tech workers in the area, and if there aren't "enough" of those people left behind for the line to be profitable enough, the line goes bu-bye, and the people who relied on it are screwed.

    This doesn't even begin to touch the issues around separating your super-rich employees from the "unwashed masses." Google "NYC tale of two cities" to read about this problem in modern, east-coast city-life contexts.

    If google wanted to be "eco-friendly", they could simply support the existing system in some fashion, or at the least buy their employees public transit passes....though since most googlers make six figures plus, they can damn well already easily afford them on their own; if it takes a private bus to get them to stop driving, the issue is that they're already looking down upon "regular" people, and that is not to be rewarded.

    Seriously, the elitist attitude among many geeks/nerds is absurd, and it's particularly strong with every Google employee I've ever met. The last thing they need is to be further coddled and given even more privilege.

  70. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 2

    That could actually be a net win for long time residents since the Googlers would move closer to work and rent in the city would fall back to affordable levels.

    Unlikely - even if the buses stopped overnight, employees can't move overnight since they have leases and other logistics to deal with.

    There's enough demand to live in SF from employees that do work in the city that as long as the economy keeps at its same level, housing freed up from Google workers that choose to live closer to Mountain View will be filled without a large drop in rents.

  71. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Ahem..
    BART!?

    Needs to be bigger, faster and fewer strikes.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  72. I LIEK TO BURN STUFF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find since I've changed my lifestyle and now live under a bridge, I have more time to smash shop windows.

  73. great idea! by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

    Sounds great. And they could grow the system as more and more people want to use it - multiple pickup spots, more stops, more destinations.

    We could call it "public transit"!

  74. Re:Thugocracy in Action by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    In Chicago,. when a large business is in an area that is remote, the CTA/RTA provide busses to get there. So in this case instead of the government paying for the transportation, Google is. How evil!

  75. gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You idiots. Go to the door step of the engineers that helped the NSA build their data stealing bullshit.

    You're lynch mob is after the wrong people

    1. Re:gah by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      How about not harassing engineers at their homes, and instead voting out politicians you don't like and not buying from companies you don't like?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll go harass everyone involved in NSA, including politicians to people complicit in designing and implementing that software, to the people who enable it to be run on a daily basis. That's a lot of people.

      As for not buying from the companies "I don't like" I have no idea which company(ies) build that shit, and if I did know, I probably wasn't giving them my money anyway because they're a firm that doesn't deal with the public. Instead, they get my (our) money through tax dollars, which is something you cannot avoid, unless you're not paying your taxes. Since I'm not American, it wasn't my tax dollars that went to it, so w.r.t bleeding them by putting my money elsewhere, why don't you come up with a solution that's not stupid? I dunno, like stopping the very people that were complicit in its operation and whatnot. I wouldn't work on a project like that. There's lots of work out there, so anyone who would try to suggest "those engineers are just trying to make a living or feed their families" is full of shit.

      As for anyone harassing the Google engineer - no that's fucking stupid. This guy is clearly trying to build something that's *helpful*. The NSA and engineers behind it build something that's *detrimental*, and deserving of harassment.

    3. Re:gah by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Sorry, pal. The voting with your wallet is not as effective as harassing people you disagree with. Every business man who thinks he has it made gives that argument. Do away with the vote and with the referendum and the demonstration and let the market decide. The market is rigged and your PR can drown out the dissent, especially if you've bought the media. So I would not fall for your ruse. I'd rather leave open the possibility of a riot than let you shut up people you disagree with.

  76. Regardless, they pick the wrong target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of gentrification, societal values, and government's function and purpose, the protesters are harassing the wrong person. We engineers don't make these decisions. The business types, money people, CEOs, etc. do. Good smart engineers are not a commodity, but a company like Google can and will find engineers to make a self-driving car. In fact, these protesters are giving Google and the engineers a good reason to go offshore.

  77. Re:Thugocracy in Action by taustin · · Score: 0

    California doesn't hate tech companies. California hates all companies, all forms of business, period. The second stupidest legislature in the US has the state more and more hostile to any form of business whatsoever for years, because it is a one party system (and even the governor is now irrelevant with the Democrats having a super majority in both houses), and that party is populated by lunatics.

    My employer now has state inspectors come to our stores on a regular basis to look for light bulbs in the trash cans.

  78. Re:Thugocracy in Action by femtobyte · · Score: 0

    the state seems determined to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

    When the golden eggs all go into billionaires' pockets, what's the good of letting the goose wander around freely and shit on everything else? Big tech companies have made billions for themselves, but also mastered the art of making sure that as little as possible returns to the communities that incubate them.

  79. Re:Thugocracy in Action by dmaul99 · · Score: 1

    Ahem, what about those of us who live in the vicinity of Mountain View and aren't multi-millionaires? Our rents are high enough here. Googlers can live wherever the hell they can afford to and so can you.

  80. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Just like the earth's climate can change, so can the business climate of a state, and California's has. Momentum will carry things for now, but the state seems determined to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

    And if you think the San Francisco Bay Area has cheap rent, you are way off base.

    I don't think California's business climate has gotten notably worse than the last tech boom, and yet companies still keep coming. It could certainly shift in the future, but shows no sign of doing so. I thought the Bay Area (Silicon Valley in particular) was going to die when a lot of the semiconductor makers moved out, but that hasn't proven to be the case.

    The Bay Area is huge -- 7000 square miles and 7 million people, so any large scale shift will take decades. It's a lot easier to recruit people to grow your startup when you don't have to relocate employees, which is one thing that makes the Bay Area attractive despite the high cost of living.

    I wasn't saying SF has cheap rent, just that people that say Google should move to Portland, or Austin or Wichita or wherever rents are cheap and land is plentiful (for now) are missing the point.

  81. God damn hippies. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 0

    Those hard-core liberals, lesbian activists, and diehard modern hippies young and old.
    [turns around and sighs]
    I swore I would never set foot in San Francisco. God help me.

    1. Re:God damn hippies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good stay the fuck out. You're not wanted. Go ahead and jerk off in your bunker in Texas.

    2. Re: God damn hippies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arww. Some loser got angry. The truth always hurts. :)

  82. Tu quoque by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Hello, Tu quoque fallacy.

    One does not need to operate completely in adherence or consistency with a concept or argument they're promoting in order for that concept or argument to be valid. Thus: nor is it valid to challenge someone's argument because they have failed to do so.

    Argument pro tip: if you're focusing on the person (ad hominem) you're Doing It Wrong.

    1. Re:Tu quoque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's been modded insightful... well done slashdot _

    2. Re:Tu quoque by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Hello, Tu quoque fallacy.

      One does not need to operate completely in adherence or consistency with a concept or argument they're promoting in order for that concept or argument to be valid. Thus: nor is it valid to challenge someone's argument because they have failed to do so.

      Argument pro tip: if you're focusing on the person (ad hominem) you're Doing It Wrong.

      Hello, Hypocrite:

      a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

      Don't expect someone to listen to your message if you choose not to follow the message yourself. Being a hypocrite may not necessarily mean that your message is not valid, but most people are not going to stop smoking when their doctor tells them to stop smoking while he smokes a cigarette. Do as I say, not as I do might work when you're a parent (and not often even then), but it's not going to win over people to your cause.

      Argument pro tip 2: If you resort to quoting Latin to show why you're winning the argument, you've already lost the argument.

    3. Re:Tu quoque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because that guy who said "be the change you want to see in the world" was ineffectual and probably wrong.

      When these protesters make any argument we can attack it. Instead they riot and appeal to emotion. Some intelligent demagogue could mold these people into some sort of effective force; I might do it myself if only it resulting in their having some sort of rational aim. However, I've read their "manifesto", and their fliers, and it's just bitching. So yes, we may absolutely condemn the persons responsible, and point out that they are merely a set of angry hypocrites.

      But hey, thanks for adding to the conversation.

    4. Re:Tu quoque by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you a hypocrite.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  83. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Altus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, from the article its not even clear if this group is actually related to the gentrification protesters at all. Could it be that these are just anti-tech protesters and they really are afraid of some kind of "roadnet" becoming sentient and plunging us into a dark and dismal future?

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  84. You are the one being judgmental here by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if it takes a private bus to get them to stop driving, the issue is that they're already looking down upon "regular" people, and that is not to be rewarded.

    Bullshit. Lots of people don't take regular buses because:

    1) The schedule is not as regular as you might hope
    2) Hard to work on most public buses (not good seating for it or network access, and you may well not get a seat).
    3) Total time taken might be very long if you have to transfer, and the bus is not going exactly where you are so there's some walking component when you reach home.
    4) Bus schedules at night get worse.

    The company buses potentially solve all those issues:

    1) Buses will be more regular as they have fewer (or possibly just one) stop.

    2) Seats meant for working and enough buses so that you can get a seat.

    3) Total time taken is greatly reduced and it's going exactly where you are, so no wasted time walking after the bus stops.

    4) Can run buses on demand.

    Really the reason these companies have buses is because employees can get hours more work in per day. That's also better for the employees because they do not necessarily have to stay at work late if they can finish up things on the bus.

    There's nothing elitist at all, it's just that a bus tailored to working serves people far better than public transport ever can. There's nothing wrong with this and as many have pointed out it is reducing congestion for everyone and ever keeping the public buses less crowded for rush hour commuters.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You are the one being judgmental here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought the issue isn't the private buses per se, but the fact that they're using city bus stops for drop off/pick up. Where I live nobody other than city buses (and sneaky taxis) are allowed to use public bus stops, not even intercity buses.

      Using the stops causes two problems: congestion and confusion for public transport users, and virtual finger giving to the public "you don't work for us so you don't get to ride our nice buses." A lot of other companies run private shuttles but keep a low profile and nobody has a problem with them.

    2. Re:You are the one being judgmental here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to ask, but here in Europe there are special lines that run specifically for a given factory, so the timetable is tailored for the entance and exit hour of that factory.
      These lines could be either run by the municipal bus company. In some cases there line are tram, with dedicated tramways laid for the factory entrance. On other case the lines are run by private bus lines.
      When the bus lines are private, on some cases are run as public transport (you pay a singlr ticket or weekly/monthly subscription and you could board the bus), are paid ad a benefit by the employeer and run as a charter bus, and in some cases the bus is paid by the employees and run as a charter bus.

           

    3. Re:You are the one being judgmental here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing elitist at all, it's just that a bus tailored to working serves people far better than public transport ever can.

      That's not quite true. If you have a dense public transport network for everyone, then buses can frequent more often than company buses can, and they can avoid taking detours to pick people up near their houses if the housing is spread out over a real city's area (you'll have people transiting at bus stops within the network, but that can be fast).

      The public transport system here in major Swiss cities and even various towns meets 1 and 4, usually also 2.

      As for point number 3, you'd usually walk less than 300m when you're in any halfway populated area, but that varies. Even so, bus/tram stops typically are placed where many people want to go - near major work places, shopping malls, ...

      Of course, with no political will to really fund a good public transport grid, rich companies can offer a better bus system for their employees only, but I don't think it looks better than an actually nice public transport system does.

  85. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    When you (or any of these protesters) earn the privilege of being an employee of such an organization then you may enjoy the perks of the arse busting that was required for that attainment. In the mean time quit b*tching. Every person on one of those buses is one less car on the road frustrating your commute. They each represent a spigot for money harvested from around the world to be placed into your local community, its stores, schools, roads, parks, etc..

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  86. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Maybe the people who both live and work in the city, and have done so for years, who suddenly find they can't afford to live there anymore due to new people who spend 90% of their time outside the city being hired by companies outside the city and provided with free transportation to their rental units.

    Sounds like a lucrative tax-base to me. Though I don't support the concept, the city could tax these folks and use that money for low income (or "worker") housing.

    IMO, it still makes the most sense that the labor unions would be behind this.

  87. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by ClioCJS · · Score: 0

    Regular people should be looked down upon. Average intelligence is insultingly stupid, and 50 percent of people are even stupider than that. You don't get an education to become average, you get an education to become smarter than most people. (It doesn't work for everybody...)

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  88. Two Sides by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    the private buses stop there, but the private buses do not pay any additional tax

    Well now they do, but even if they did not why exactly SHOULD they pay extra?

    The companies already pay extra taxes that take care of the roads. The companies do not ask for signage at the stops. They are there only briefly and then gone...

    The other issue is that, since all of the young high-paid workers are living in the city instead of near work, they have driven up prices to the point that existing residents can no longer afford to live there.

    Oh no! They caused the house you bought a while ago to have a massive increase in value! Those bastards!

    I'm just curious where exactly you think the tech workers SHOULD live if you think this is an issue. They cannot all live in the city itself. Wherever you put them you have the same "issue" of having a bunch of people that pay a ton of taxes also looking for nice places to live. See "Detroit" for what happens when you drive those people away.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Two Sides by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      Oh no! They caused the house you bought a while ago to have a massive increase in value! Those bastards!

      People renting the house that get evicted because someone else will pay 3x as much don't have any equity in the house. The landlords are making out, yeah. The renters, not so much.

      I'm just curious where exactly you think the tech workers SHOULD live if you think this is an issue.

      I'm not taking sides in this, I don't even live in California. I was pointing out what the issues are that people are protesting because someone asked.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Two Sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People renting the house that get evicted because someone else will pay 3x as much don't have any equity in the house. The landlords are making out, yeah. The renters, not so much.

      I'm sorry, but do renters not have any rights in California? Here in Massachusetts, it is an insanely difficult and lengthy process for a landlord to evict a tenant. I know this for a fact, as my father-in-law owns several rental properties and has a really bad habit of accepting unsavory tenants.

      This strikes me as misplaced anger at people who can afford higher rental costs. The anger here should really be redirected at lack of rent control or renter's rights under the law. Go picket your politicians instead of people who have done nothing wrong except have been astute enough to get a job in technology.

    3. Re:Two Sides by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but do renters not have any rights in California? Here in Massachusetts, it is an insanely difficult and lengthy process for a landlord to evict a tenant. I know this for a fact, as my father-in-law owns several rental properties and has a really bad habit of accepting unsavory tenants.

      From what I read, it sounds like the landlords are exploiting a loophole in the law. Where I live we also have very strong protections for renters, they wouldn't be able to do that here.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  89. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sabri · · Score: 1

    mastered the art of making sure that as little as possible returns to the communities that incubate them.

    I think that you will see that the average income of tech-industry workers around the SF bay area is among the highest in the nation. That money largely flows back into the local economy.

    The money I earn gets spends on my rent, local sales tax, CA income tax, CA SDI, car insurance, etc etc etc. It's not like I can have my paycheck sent to the Cayman Islands and enjoy a tax-free income.

    I also believe that Google provides free WiFi in the Mountain View area, just as a service. And every school in the area will have some form of sponsorship from the local tech giants.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  90. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if all those people started driving, the bus wouldn't have any customers what so ever.
    Oh the horror.
    This is just like RIAA complaining that copying is stealing.
    Why wouldn't google have a bus for its employees?
    When I went to school I went in the bus that specifically took the children of employees of a certain company to the city.
    That way the people can live conveniently close to the company, and kids can still go to good schools.
    This is just the opposite.
    People live close to the good schools and get a bus to work.

    Next your going to start complaining that companies can't provide other perks like good food at work, because now who is going to eat at any of the restaurants?
    People are just jealous.

  91. It's all about real estate by grimsnaggle · · Score: 1

    If the root complaint is that housing prices are going up, then San Francisco and its residents are at least as much to blame as the economic success of their region. They consistently vote to nix new housing developments because they feel it will upset the character of a neighborhood, or block the view of an adjacent one. To put it bluntly, it's property owners voting down measures that would dilute their property value and current tenants voting down measures that they feel would change the demographics of their neighborhood.

    The city is a popular place for young people to live, and with proximity to strong schools like Berkeley and Stanford, young professionals have money. Without growth in housing units, the free market will push housing prices up so long as demand will support it. This is just like any other real estate market in the country.

    Many residents complain that the tech buses are using public bus stops. That's between the city and the tech companies, and they've got a negotiated agreement. Maybe the residents are not happy with how their city represented their interests and what they got in return, but that's between the residents and their government. As of right now, the tech companies' use of public bus stops is legal and agreed-upon. Any protests against that use should be at city hall, not at the bus stops.

    As for mass transit, that's a hugely sticky issue in the area as well. Caltrain fares are more than the cost to drive for a given distance and it doesn't connect to the BART system, nor does it wrap around at San Jose / Milpitas. The state can't afford to buy the land or pay the construction crews to connect and harmonize these lines, nor will homeowners allow for significant expansion due to the perceived loss in home value. And then there's the problem of the entire western half of SF, where there is no rail or subway at all.

  92. Re:Thugocracy in Action by CycleMan · · Score: 1

    How broad geographically is CTA/RTA's scope? I'm curious because this sounds like a completely logical and intelligent idea.

    The main challenge I can see in Google's case is that these buses would run through 3 counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara), each with its own transit authority, and CalTrain and BART are two additional transit authorities. There is a visible lack of coordination between these agencies, and funding is uneven. With one joint overall authority, greater alignment might be possible.

  93. Re:Thugocracy in Action by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    Read the fucking article; get a fucking clue. Sitting here and making up shit just makes you look retarded.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  94. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by CycleMan · · Score: 1

    Private buses may be decreasing the number of public transit riders, but our local transit system is already 85% subsidized, which is about the highest in the nation. Almost none of the lines are profitable ever, before or after Google. So while I welcome more folks riding transit, and think that a public system that helps non-car-owning (generally low-income or student) populations to get around is a good thing, putting every Google and Apple and Genentech employee on the buses won't do much to the subsidy level.

  95. G-Tard Trolleys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't be so bad if their drivers weren't pricks. I've been cut off several times
    by these assholes. At least VTA has supervisors that monitor drivers.

    1. Re:G-Tard Trolleys by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be so bad if their drivers weren't pricks. I've been cut off several times
      by these assholes. At least VTA has supervisors that monitor drivers.

      There are lots of pricks on the roads, I haven't found employee shuttle drivers to be worse than others, they are just more visible in those big white buses.

    2. Re:G-Tard Trolleys by sjames · · Score: 1

      And more likely to kill someone? It's bad enough when a prick in an econobox cuts you off, but there's a reason people who drive much larger vehicles are supposed to be held to higher standards.

      Note, I have no idea how the Google bus drivers behave, I live on the other coast.

  96. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. The article does not mention unions. But now that he, and you, brought it up, and now that I think about it -- who else would be opposed to self driving cars? It all makes sense.

    Yes, it all makes sense. No wait, what's the other thing? No sense, that's it. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

    You retarded fuckwit.

  97. Re:Thugocracy in Action by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    "Long time residents" are not owed lower rents continuing into the indefinite future. Neighborhoods evolve. Some people win, but some people lose. That's too bad.

    Personally, I expect that as a professional, I'd find those neighborhoods more interesting with the influence of the better-paid residents.

  98. Hey Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move to Columbus Ohio - pretty sure the non-existent public transport would not being bitching nearly as much, and you're more central to everything (it *is* the heart of it all, you know).

  99. Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I met Lewandowsky when he was an undergrad at Berkeley, building a self-driving motorcycle, while also running a startup to sell a two-screen display for field use at construction sites with a player for drawings. I was impressed. He does tend to deliver on his schemes.

    The Google bus thing is impressive. Google now has a huge bus fleet. They're all the same, they're all huge, and they're all white and unmarked. They're more visible than the public bus lines, because they're concentrated in a few areas. Yesterday, I was caught in a traffic jam of Google buses in Mountain View.

    One of those areas is the Mission District in San Francisco. It's an OK low rent neighborhood, but not great or particularly cool. (SOMA, pre Dot Com Boom 1.0 was cool - lots of art galleries, performance spaces, clubs, warehouse parties - the fun things that need big, cheap spaces. That's over.) I have friends living in the Mission. I've been there many times. It's not really being "gentrified". It's just that rents are going up on existing buildings, which is annoying residents. SOMA and Dogpatch have been redeveloped, with most of the old buildings replaced and most of the rest converted to residential lofts or such.

    SF is driving out low-income people. Mayor Brown said a few years ago that no one making less than $50K a year should live in SF. Really. The Mission was one of the few cheap neighborhoods left that was merely poor, not awful. SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.

    1. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      That mayor doesn't represent all the people, is thus not doing the job he was sworn too, and needs to be removed.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.

      Dear God! What will San Francisco's good and decent law-abiding citizens do without crackhouses, whores, and the homeless?! Oh the humanity!

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    3. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there.

      I don't know, I was there a couple weeks ago and there were still a lot of homeless people. A few months ago, I saw a fistfight on the corner of Market and 6th

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Animats · · Score: 1

      I saw a fistfight on the corner of Market and 6th.

      Sounds about normal. But localized. Also, it's just a fistfight, not a gunfight or a drive-by. For that you go to Oakland.

      Twitter is at 9th and Market. That moved gentification a block further. There's construction on Market between 7th and 8th. There's a giant indoor mall at 5th and Market, anchoring the other end of the vise that's closing on 6th St.

    5. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will San Francisco's good and decent law-abiding citizens do without crackhouses, whores, and the homeless?! Oh the humanity!

      They will have to resort to their own legalized addictions (caffeine, pain pills, anti-depressants) purchased from their own drug-dealers (the grocery store), their own legalized whoring (marriage and wife-swapping, along with special treatment at tax time) and their own houselessness (on perpetual lease from the state).

      The good news though is we can look down on all the poor suckers who haven't fixed things and don't reword them so that their vices and illusions are fashionable. Losers.

      We can make up words than mean the exact same thing, and noone will ever see through our lies.

      The newspeak never ends.

    6. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's bemoaning the loss of crackhouses, just pointing out that even the worst of the low income housing stock is being converted. Soon there won't be anywhere for low-income people to live, and if you think that just includes criminals, you're foolish. It includes service workers, recent immigrants, and artists. Without those groups, San Francisco will no longer be a very attractive place to live.

    7. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I was caught in a traffic jam of Google buses in Mountain View.

      Has it ever occurred to you how bad the traffic would be if these companies weren't providing bus service?

      The right to freedom of movement and freedom to choose where you live are recognized as basic human rights.

      You seem to think otherwise.

    8. Re:Lewandowsky, SF, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's definitely already happening. As the 'loin gentrifies, the marginal people living there have been pushed into already-gentrified Hayes Valley and even as far as Noe Valley, and winding up sleeping in homeowners' doorways (out of the weather), using the streets as public restrooms, etc.

      Note that the fact that the marginal population (yes, drug users, whores, homeless, de-institutionalized crazy, et cetera ad nauseam) seems to be rather like a liquid - it does not neatly reduce in volume when compressed; it flows elsewhere. I have no solutions - but it seems to me that there's got to be a way of dealing with people who are self-destructive in the extreme, and whose self-destructive activities affect the quality of life of a neighborhood. Criminalizing them hasn't worked, and there seems to be no way to even get them into a marginally 'normal' living situation like an SRO - when it's been done in the past, such buildings become seriously dangerous very quickly.

      Going to be interesting to watch this and see how the society at large responds when the 'loin is gentrified and the marginal folks have to find new places.

  100. Google Should Move by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Seriously. California is a basket case economically. They are located in an area that drives their costs up almost beyond comprehension. They are starting to get pushback from the surrounding communities for what reason? Being successful.

    Longer term that area is going to go bouncy bounce in a very unpleasant way. Being located there will NOT be fun.

    It's not nice, and getting worse. In the long term they are guaranteed things will get REALLY FUCKED BAD.

    Time to start working on an exit strategy.

    1. Re:Google Should Move by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Time to start working on an exit strategy.

      It's called NEVADA.

      Corporate tax rate? 0%
      (Employees will also like the total lack of a state income tax for them, too)
      Google deployed self driving cars here.
      Corporate laws are less restrictive than even Delaware.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  101. Re:Thugocracy in Action by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    And the tax income would drop like a rock and so would a lot of the jobs.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  102. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Prince William County VA and take my county bus service to Washington DC every day. It's not a crappy city bus either, it is a nice touring bus with nice reclining seats, individual air and light controls etc.. I pay about $7 round trip, some of the buses have free wi-fi too. This is 25 miles and three counties away from DC. Countries even further south from DC and further West do the same. These counties realize that a lot of their residents work in DC but live in the suburbs. Since I and other like me pay county taxes here and spend 99.9% of our income in the actual county and not in DC where we work, it is in their best interest to make it easy for us to live here and work there. For some reason SF thinks the exact opposite.

  103. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    The problem is: how do they tax them? Based on whether they work inside city limits or commute elsewhere (such as itinerant labourers do)? The problem is that the normal avenues of taxation (fuel taxes, sales taxes, etc) are being evaded inside the city, and so the only taxation that really hits them is property tax -- which for rentals, is reflected in raised rental rates for the entire area. They could, of course, put tolls on all the routes between the city and these company's HQs; busses would still have to pay per-head, and they could recoup some money there. But that wouldn't bring rental rates back down significantly, as the companies would still be paying the tolls, not the employees.

  104. re: Gentrification by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    IMO, gentrification is a "thing" ... It happens all over the country, and as often as not, it winds up a net benefit to a city's economy.
    EG. Memphis, TN, where my wife is originally from? If you drive around most of Memphis these days, it almost all looks run down. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of postcards and promotional photos for Memphis depict parts of Beale Street. That's one of the last remaining streets in the whole city that still looks like it's flourishing, thanks to all the tourism directed towards the famous restaurants and clubs there. And the truth is, there's really no good reason it needs to be that way. Among other things, Memphis is the nation's hub for FedEx -- no small company! They've seen a gentrification underway in parts of midtown Memphis though, which finally brings in a crowd with some interest in rehabbing some of the old buildings and revitalizes some business in the area. I suppose if you're one of the low income residents from that area, it seems like it's pushing you and your family out? But bottom line is, there's just not a benefit to discouraging people with more spending money to make part of a city their home.

    I think the protesting of Google buses and the rest of it is insanity. The whole country knows perfectly well that cost of living anywhere near Silicon Valley is one of the highest in the nation. Nobody I know ventures out that way without that understanding. If you find you can't afford to live there anymore because you don't earn as much as more successful people getting hired in your town? Tough .... Probably time to move out (and sell your home at a big profit while you're at it, if you're not renting).

    I live near Washington DC myself, and our family struggles with the exact same issue out here. Home prices out here are insanely high, thanks to all the overpaid politicians and government contractors out here, not to mention high ranking military/ex-military just across the border in Virginia. So what did we do? Moved out a little further to a more rural area where it was more affordable, and deal with the commute. It sucks, but I see no point in trying to fight economic realities. (And I feel like in my case, I'd actually have MORE justification to complain than if I was upset about private businesses like Google running up home prices and tax rates. In this case, a lot of it is funded via my tax dollars!)

  105. out of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if a google self-driving car ran over a protestor, who would be liable?

  106. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    And the newcomers are not owed a warm welcome or special access to public spaces such as bus stops..

  107. He works for Google... by Quarters · · Score: 1

    All he needs to do is point a webcam out his window and I'm sure he'll be able to get face recognition hits, names, addresses, SSNs, etc... of everyone standing in his yard.

    1. Re:He works for Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then gather an unknown group of Googlers (including a few Petmans from Boston Dynamics for security) to counter-protest outside a protester's home. Now that'll be hot breaking news!

  108. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n... no.

    Google doesn't employ the majority of tech workers in SF. The only realistic ways to reduce rents in the city are
    a) Evict all tech companies from any offices north of San Jose.
    b) Build enough goddamn apartment buildings in SF to meet (and slightly exceed, for the next three or so years) demand.

  109. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    Market force too strong...can't resist urge to live closer to work, work closer to home, or seek employment in different city...

  110. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why the h*ll would Google and Facebook employees want to ride the same buses that high school students stick chewing gum to the seats of and niggers piss in?

  111. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that you will see that the average income of tech-industry workers around the SF bay area is among the highest in the nation. That money largely flows back into the local economy.

    Well, no shit. When I raise the cash inputs, the commensurate cost of living goes up across the board (food, insurance, housing). Standard of living does not necessarily rise in a proportionate manner.

    When I'm blowing more I into the circuit, Ohm's law dictates the same R are dropping (or 'developing' depending on your school of thought) more E.

  112. Re:Thugocracy in Action by femtobyte · · Score: 1

    Key word: tech industry workers, in an industry known for a low number of workers per dollar funneled to oligarchs. You, personally, may not have that Cayman Islands account --- but Google Corporate (or whichever authoritarian technocratic oligopoly you work for, and all the bigwigs a few layers up from your boss) certainly does. Your pay represents a miniscule fraction of Google's take (expatriated to offshore tax havens, and accumulated in the pockets of an oligarchic elite); perhaps not much compared to sweetheart tax breaks and shenanigans pulled by Google HQ.

  113. Re:Thugocracy in Action by cusco · · Score: 1

    Their complaint is that the company is making it to easy to live in the area and driving up rent. They want the Google employees to have to live closer to Mountain View, so that rent in their area will drop again. Not terribly realistic, since now that the thought has been planted in people's head if Google were to discontinue providing bus service someone would create a business to provide that service anyway.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  114. What if it was a case of mistaken identity? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    If they thought that he was someone else...
    Some other Levandowski who WAS Jewish... and then they peed on his rug?

    Besides... Maybe he converted when he got married.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  115. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by t0qer · · Score: 4, Funny

    One question...why?

    If I worked at Google I wouldn't want you on my bus. Google is a big machine. As someone who also works for a big machine, I'm only here for the perks and I have no interest in sharing with outsiders.

    You want my perks? Come break your back with me and work 60 hours a week...then the bus rides, free food, nap pods, etc. will seem less like privileges and more like justifications for your insanity...

    Can't tell if trying to insult me, or recruit me.

  116. Re:Thugocracy in Action by cusco · · Score: 1

    If you RTFA, its renters irate about rising rents driving them out of the area as wealthy Google/Apple/etc. employees move in. Nothing to do with unions at all.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  117. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by colfer · · Score: 1

    SamTrans runs an express bus between from SF and Palo Alto, but that's only halfway to San Jose. Too many counties!

  118. Re:Thugocracy in Action by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    This is kind of an argument from ignorance.....you are saying you can't think of any other reason, therefore there must be no other reason.

    There is an alternative: people from San Francisco are crazy. Even the homeless people are more crazy than other places. I don't know that can be, but it's true.

    More respectfully, these protestors seem to be people who are upset about changes in their community. That is something that happens everywhere. It is spilling out into protests because, hey, protesting is fun, and San Franciscans know it. It's a San Francisco thing to do. Seriously, if you live in the area, join a protest sometime. It's fun.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  119. Re:Thugocracy in Action by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That what buses where for. People who couldn't afford their own transportation They weren't created for better traffic, and they are the least green way to move people.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  120. Re:Thugocracy in Action by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have a weird definition of public spaces if there are certain classes not allowed to use them.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  121. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

    That's because you're not thinking about the other benefits.. More buses means less traffic which means fewer road lanes are required. It also means less maintenance on the roads, less pollution, and less fuel use. Because of all these external benefits, public transportation really should be free or nearly free for passengers: more people riding public transportation is a net gain for the city. Overall, money is saved in lowered road construction and maintenance and lower fuel/vehicle costs for passengers.

  122. Re:Thugocracy in Action by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That has been the problem in CA since the 70s.
    Really, the State need to take over the public transportation, this county approach has been broken for decades.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  123. Re:Thugocracy in Action by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Crazy people. Read the flier, and what thye are saying. They are saying some stupid nonsensicle and crazy shit, Like 'Steal from the techies whose house you clean'

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  124. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    The high income earners will tend to live in areas that are high property value. That means they pay more in property tax through their rent or lease payments.

    I'm not sure "evaded" is the term I'd use. I doubt their primary consideration is avoiding tax, I'd bet the average worker wants to avoid a miserable commute. I know when I've had long commutes, I would have loved to ride in a nice coach and not have to drive. It wouldn't have been about gas tax, road tax, tolls, or any of that, it would be purely a quality of life consideration. Driving is stressful. Reading is not.

  125. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Sure, because ideological organizations would never use a pretext.

  126. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    Troll? Really? Instead of leading people on or being sarcastic, I answered the question -- people get upset when their rent goes up. As a disclaimer, I've been hit by the exact situation where I live, although it's a different megacorp bussing its employees around. It's definitely affected rental rates in the area. Unions don't seem to mind, as they're driving the buses (and it's not a pro-union area). But people who have lived in the area for generations are getting a bit upset that their children are being forced to either move away or take a job with the megacorp.

  127. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by geekoid · · Score: 1

    u should problem spend less time reading carlin and more time studying about averages and what they are.
    HInt,
    120
    130
    110
    126
    128
    85.

    Are half the people below average?

    And you get an education for knowledge,skills, and contacts. It doesn't make you smarter.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  128. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    3rd party surveys show that 46% of the Googlers would move if the shuttle buses went away.

  129. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    Mountain View it is then. Enjoy your move!

  130. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure many of the residents who are upset would find b to be acceptable.

  131. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 0

    The bus stops are for public transportation.

  132. This is why people own guns... by Chas · · Score: 1

    So these people can't debate in a rational manner.
    So they're going to invest in lynch mob mentality and harass people?
    It must really suck to have an IQ in the low single digits...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  133. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    This is kind of an argument from ignorance.....you are saying you can't think of any other reason, therefore there must be no other reason.

    Wait, are question marks no longer an acceptable way of indicating a question?

    There is an alternative: people from San Francisco are crazy. Even the homeless people are more crazy than other places. I don't know that can be, but it's true.
     

    Crazy folks don't tend to organize.

    More respectfully, these protestors seem to be people who are upset about changes in their community. That is something that happens everywhere. It is spilling out into protests because, hey, protesting is fun, and San Franciscans know it. It's a San Francisco thing to do. Seriously, if you live in the area, join a protest sometime. It's fun.

    Stalking people where they live or vandalizing people's transportation is not exactly what I'd call fun. Whoever these people are, they are assholes for doing this. Unions are the brotherhood of assholes, which to me is another sign.

    This does happen everywhere, but rarely does it turn into this kind of madness. I get pinged by west coast tech companies frequently and stories like this encourage me to stay far, far away. I'm sure the liberals would be happy about that, but if too many people do the same, those companies will inevitably have to open up shop elsewhere. They're not going to lower salaries or take commuting options away from their employees just because some thugs told them to.

  134. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by geekoid · · Score: 1

    60 houre a week in an office is not 'breaking you back'?
    God your soft andd spoiled.

    I also work in an office(Software engineer), but I have never considered it 'back breaking', even when I did 100 hour weeks.

    Maybe that's because I have actual worked 'back breaking' jobs.

    Go work in a field, or put up dry wall. or did a ditch. You have no real perspective.

    I'm not saying your job is easy, or stress free, but back braking? that's laughable.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  135. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "..earn the privilege..."
    wow, aren't you a corporate bitch.

    Busses are worse then driving environmentally, and traffic wise.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  136. One of the points of having a private bus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the points of having a private bus for your company is that you can talk about your work without having to worry about industrial espionage. This is why Apple, Google, Facebook, eBay, Genentech, Yahoo, Intuit, and others, run private busses (the Intuit campus, for example, is directly adjoining the Google campus, and it would otherwise make sense for them to share).

    It's a benefit for their workers, and it puts them in technical compliance with laws regarding carpooling and other ride sharing arrangements being foisted off on corporations.

    See US Internal Revenue Code section 132(a), also section 132(F) of federal tax code (this is also where the bicycle benefit is located).

  137. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    3rd party surveys show that 46% of the Googlers would move if the shuttle buses went away.

    How many would take public transit to Mountain View? I still say that most of the remaining 15,000 would commute by car , because unless you live close to Caltrain, taking Muni to get there is a non-starter. So instead of a few hundred buses on the streets, there'd be 10,000 cars competing for roads *and* parking.

  138. Do you think they used a typesetter... by John+Marter · · Score: 1

    ..to create that flyer. Or did they take advantage of technology to avoid hiring a professional. I know that there are problems to be solved with jobs lost to technology. I can't believe the solution is to have people do the jobs instead.

  139. Re: Gentrification by geekoid · · Score: 1

    several studies came out this week. Gentrification is a boom for anyone who stays.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  140. Residential picketing is disgusting! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

    They may have a point, but picketing a person's home is disgusting.

    Really harms the legitimacy of someone's position, and is a terrible invasion.

    Really needs to be illegal. I'm pro-civil liberties, but stuff like that should not be tolerated, and should be a felony for repeat offenses.

    Disturbing someone at home because you don't like the implications of the technology he works on or the fact materials for it are mined in the Congo or whatever (bet the protestors own iPhone or use other tech that needs minerals) is frightening. Not only gov't can have a chilling effect!

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Residential picketing is disgusting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have a point, but picketing a person's home is disgusting.

      Really harms the legitimacy of someone's position, and is a terrible invasion.

      Sounds like you are against Google driving people out of their homes?

      I fail to see the distinction.

      One would think the protesters would be applauded for facing someone eye to eye and willing to have
      a discussion with them in person, rather than silently secretly driving people out of their homes without
      any debate.

      If anything, it sounds like they are being extra nice to this guy.

    2. Re:Residential picketing is disgusting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are protesting precisely so that they may have a chilling effect. They want him to stop what he's doing because they believe it's wrong - so strongly that they'll not do something else productive and instead picket his home.

      Code Pink picketed/demonstrated outside Dianne Feinstein's house recently - does that make it any different because she's a US Senator?

      Picketing and protests are designed to have an effect (chilling if you like), to get people to change their ways or take a different action.

      Residential picketing is also disgusting and doesn't much help anyone's point HOWEVER that doesn't mean it should be illegal (at least not in the land of the free). If residential picketing became illegal, I can assure you that picketing outside a business (who has the ability to do backroom picketing, known as lobbying) would certainly get their areas/sidewalks cleared out of the rabble.

      Abortion clinic and related 'safe zones' are infringing on the rights of the protestors of course, but at this point that is because there's been a history of violence by the protestors and those seeking services should be free from harm.

  141. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    That what buses where for. People who couldn't afford their own transportation They weren't created for better traffic, and they are the least green way to move people.

    Why do you say that buses are the least green way to move people? Full buses are very efficient. An 8mpg bus with 50 passengers gets 400 passenger miles per gallon. 200 passenger mpg if it runs half the route empty.

    Fill a 12 mpg Hummer H2 with 6 passengers and it tops out at 72 passenger mpg.

    Even if the bus has only 10 passengers and runs half the route empty, it's still getting 40 passenger miles/gallon -- better than most cars on the road.

    I think small passenger ferries take the crown for least-green method of travel.

  142. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by t0qer · · Score: 1

    Wish I wasn't on the mod ban list, I'd throw an upvote your way.

    However I've done back breaking work in tech. I was laid off in 2001 and went to work for a bar (not backbreaking) During the day though I was a IT consultant, my own company.

    One customer had these giant mini fridge sized IBM netfinity servers that needed to be rack mounted. My partner couldn't hold his grip, so (unwisely) I told him to let go and let me carry the load. I slowly felt something in my back rip. I couldn't breath deep breaths for almost a year after that. It took years of struggle to get my back to the pain free status it is today, but it still makes odd pops and clicks whenever I stretch.

  143. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    Texas is open for business. I'm not a resident there, but I'd love to see a mass exodus from California and watch their liberal paradise sink into third-world status overnight.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  144. Re:Thugocracy in Action by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Wait, are question marks no longer an acceptable way of indicating a question?

    You started by saying, "Of course it's about unions. Look who is being targeted. What other possibilities are there?" Over and over, you blame unions, as if you have some kind of blind hatred for them.

    At least be honest about the argument you are trying to make.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  145. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    No idea about Mountain View.

    The traffic and parking will tend to drive a few more to closer location.

  146. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    some kind of "roadnet" becoming sentient and plunging us into a dark and dismal future?

    As long as my car can drive itself in the dark, I'm cool with that.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  147. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    wow, aren't you a corporate bitch.

    I'm not sure what that even means. However, given the tone I would infer that you are on the outside looking in. Whose fault is that? But more importantly, if those on the inside are "b*tches" why should it matter to you what perks we get in exchange? Enjoy your freedom and forget about us.

    Busses are worse then driving environmentally, and traffic wise.

    Citation required

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  148. Proposition 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should really be protesting Proposition 13 - it's one of the main housing costs are so out of whack in California. Anyone who bought property in the 1970's or 80's is basically paying nothing in real estate taxes - so why would they sell? Prop 13 benefits real estate investors more than anyone, not necessarily families.

  149. Re:Thugocracy in Action by hawguy · · Score: 1

    The bus stops are for public transportation.

    Since SFMTA is "renting" the stops for $1/day, it turns out that the bus stops are for all bus transport.

  150. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the protesters aren't complaining about taxes, they are complaining that high paid employees are driving up rents and making the city expensive.

    Oh noes, the slums are turning into mixed-income housing developments. The horror!

  151. Class Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all this is. Nothing more.

    A bunch of Democrat assholes whipping up class warfare to justify new laws that will make it even harder for poor people to break the cycle.

  152. Re:Thugocracy in Action by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Either the Googlers are responsible for the increased demand and the rents would drop if they left, or they're not. You can't have it both ways.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  153. Re:Thugocracy in Action by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    It's a question inviting people to contradict my theory that it's the labor unions. You even quoted me posing the question.

    You appear to have a blind hatred for people that ask questions. Labor unions look like the most likely culprit. I'd consider other options, but I haven't seen any that are more compelling.

    As for honesty, blaming Google employees because you can't make you rent payment is a bit dishonest and stinks of blind hatred, does it not?

    (That's a question.)

  154. I wish this had happened in the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this had happened in some forsaken hole like Alabama, we could all kick back and laugh at the hicks and white trash for being the fools and idiots that they most assuredly are. But, as it is, who can we mock and feel better than?

    Just imagined if a group of crazed 'necks had gathered outside the home of a respected black businessman and demanded he stop making money and being innovative. That would be a blast for us all to critique and analyze.

  155. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Demonantis · · Score: 2

    In Ontario we have a train/bus service called Go Transit. Regulated by the province. The goal is pulling workers into Toronto and out of Toronto without them driving. It works great and is expanding. The only thing it sucks for is people not working the 9 to 5.

  156. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    u

    At least now we know that the 85 in the list is yours.

  157. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the protesters aren't complaining about taxes, they are complaining that high paid employees are driving up rents and making the city expensive.

    Oh noes, the slums are turning into mixed-income housing developments. The horror!

    Uhh, no. Are you at all familiar with San Francisco?

    The slums have turned into multi-million dollar housing and apartments targeting the extremely affluent.

  158. Too bad this didn't happen in the South by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this had happened in some forsaken hole like Alabama or Mississippi, we could all kick back and laugh at the hicks and white trash for being the fools and idiots that they most assuredly are. But, as it is, who can we mock and feel better than?

    Just imagined if a group of crazed 'necks had gathered outside the home of a respected black businessman and demanded he stop making money and being innovative. That would be a blast for us all to critique and analyze.

  159. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3rd party surveys show that 46% of the Googlers would move if the shuttle buses went away.

    How many would take public transit to Mountain View? I still say that most of the remaining 15,000 would commute by car , because unless you live close to Caltrain, taking Muni to get there is a non-starter. So instead of a few hundred buses on the streets, there'd be 10,000 cars competing for roads *and* parking.

    How about just moving somewhere less insane than thirty-eight miles from your job?

  160. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does San Francisco not run buses on the same lines? If not, the problem is with the city, not Google.

    The problem is with the entire region.

    The problem is with people too stubborn to live closer to their damn work.

  161. Blaming individuals by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    It seems weird to me to blame individual where the problem is really political. But if we follow that scheme, protesters would better gather at CEO's houses. Or even better, at shareholder's house. And then perhaps people will discover they have financial products that should cause them to protest at their own place.

  162. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

    Ahem..
    BART!?

    Needs to be bigger, faster and fewer strikes.

    The California High Speed Rail project has been in various phases of development for over a decade.

    These things aren't built overnight. It also relies on voters getting passionate about funding it, which changes depending on how the economy's doing.

    The former mayor of Palo Alto wanted to hold it up awhile ago, because he's basically afraid it'll reduce property values. The new mayor basically bragged to her constituents upon taking office about successfully holding up the project at added expense to the state. So, you have those kinds of obstructions to consider as well.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  163. Re:Thugocracy in Action by sjames · · Score: 1

    It is now, for $1/stop/day but it wasn't before.

  164. Protesting against a guy for developing housing? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

    A lot of people have pointed out the fact that getting rid of the shuttle buses will increase traffic. But another thing that strikes me as odd is that they accuse this guy of developing an apartment building in Berkeley. Don't they understand that this would increase housing supply, and bring the cost of housing down? They're basically sending a message to developers not to build any new buildings, which is a really dumb idea if they want to halt gentrification.

  165. Re:Thugocracy in Action by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

    Great, problem solved. Now the people protesting the busing of the Silicon Valley employees can turn their attention to the actual underlying situation, in which their futures are literally being stolen from them.

  166. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably need some medallion or other exclusive license. The protesting is probably some astroturfing agenda attempting to protect those with exclusive licenses.

    Notice how "the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) voted for the first time to take action regulating Google, Facebook, Apple, and a number of other large tech companies that shuttle workers in private, Wi-Fi-enabled buses from the Bay Area to points south in Silicon Valley."

    Chances are someone with an exclusive license lobbied for these regulations and those same people are behind these 'protests'.

  167. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Google does seem to do this, they are paying a chunk of costs of the shuttle going between the train station and the Shoreline area. In the past this shuttle had mostly died off and there were only a few private corporate shuttles. Granted this new shuttle is mostly Google because Google has acquired so many of the buildings in the area, with the economic downturn there aren't as many companies clustered there as there used to be.

    This shuttle is listed on the official caltrain schedule.

  168. Google has problems by NynexNinja · · Score: 1

    If Google didn't build their own private air terminal at San Jose Airport to get around flying with the riff raff, or build their own private bus system to get around employees riding BART with the riff raff, they probably wouldnt have so much back lash. They are not doing things that is for the community. They are trying to shield themselves from the community. To outsiders, I'm sure it appears they are building their own utopian society that is somehow greater than the one they live in. If they want to be seen as helpful, they should be doing helpful things. The whole creepy factor about everything they do is also more than most people can handle as well. Whether it be using Google Glass to try to lookup criminal histories of random strangers on the street, or using the Google Bus to avoid interacting with regular humans, or using the Google Airport to avoid interacting with regular humans. Apple is in similar circumstances, but they are less creepy and so people are not up in arms about them, yet.

  169. Re:Thugocracy in Action by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It's a question inviting people to contradict my theory that it's the labor unions. You even quoted me posing the question.

    lol ok. I'll concede that point then, and leave while pointing out that you are really bad at making your questions not sound like rhetorical questions lol.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  170. Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    The problem is that buying is not an option for many people, because the money that they would otherwise be putting toward paying off a house (or that 20% of a house they have to put down up front before they can pay the rest off over time) is instead spent paying off their landlord's mortgage for them.

    I'm 31, make a bit above the national median household income since about two years ago, and live in a moderately expensive area (not the Bay, but not Bumfuck Idaho either; average home price here is about $350k), and homeownership is a distant long-term life goal for me, which is so strenuously nigh-impossible that it's just about displaced everything else I ever dreamt I might want to do with my life. I've just barely managed to buy the smallest cheapest mobile home I could buy last year, but that still has me paying space rent about equal to the rent on a room I'd been paying my whole life since, and it's looking like another 5 years of saving at least before I can afford to put a down payment on a real house and FINALLY have my housing expenses go toward buying something of my own instead of borrowing something of someone else's. (Then another 30 years of working my ass off to pay those bills and I can finally afford to spend time doing something meaningful with my life in last five years of it, provided I have any energy or sanity left by then to do the shit I wanted to spend my life doing when I was 20).

    The only reason gentrification is a problem at all is, for one part, the property taxes issue, which Prop 13 has fixed; and for the second part, the can't-get-out-of-renting issue, which is the real problem, and a major manifestation of the real underlying cause of all the excesses of capitalism. Rent of any form is inherently parasitic and market-distorting and needs to be eliminated entirely if we ever want people to be free from serfdom. Just because we live on one lord's land while working another's now does make it any less feudal than when we live and worked the same lots.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Loki_1929 · · Score: 0

      Not everyone can afford to buy. That isn't a problem; it's an economic reality likely to persist as long as property exists as we know it. If a bunch of new people move into an area without construction to compensate (and the Bay area has been notorious for not allowing much of any new construction), classic supply and demand forces prices to rise. Those who cannot or choose not to buy rather than rent will inevitably feel the increase in prices. They can either fight to allow more construction (i.e. housing supply) to absorb the influx of people or they can wait until their rent becomes so high they can't afford to stay there any longer. Even if they do the former, the latter may come to be. There's nothing unjust about it as a rental agreement doesn't provide one rights beyond the end of the agreement's term. If you rent for 12 months, you don't get to stay there 13, 14, 16 months. If you've signed 20 one-year leases, that doesn't give you some special entitlement to stay there in year 21.

      Anyone who's renting should recognize that rents can change with market conditions. If the place you're living in becomes the hot new place to be, your rent is going up. If you're renting in Detroit (aka Gentrification-free-ville), your rent is going down (or should be - talk with your landlord about that or just move to any one of a hundred places nearby). Those moving into the Bay area have exactly as much right to be there as anyone else. If they're paying their rent/mortgage, nobody has any right to be upset with them. They have done nothing wrong. And anyone who thinks they have should go where their imagined problem (gentrification) doesn't exist (Detroit).

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      Not everyone can afford to buy. That isn't a problem; it's an economic reality likely to persist as long as property exists as we know it.

      Not everyone can afford food either, but the reality of that situation doesn't make it not a problem. The near-total impossibility for large swathes of the population obtain housing of their own, leaving them dependent on borrowing housing from others (which in itself perpetuates their inability to buy), is a problem. We cannot have a free and equal population when large chunks of it are dependent on others for a necessity of life like housing, and have almost no hope of even slowly or gradually working their way out of that situation.

      I'm not complaining about gentrification here, in fact I've complained about people who complain about gentrification before. I have no problem with the value of real estate in different places being different, and changing as conditions in those different places change; that's just normal market dynamics. I'm saying that the real cause of the problem that has people upset about "gentrification" is the fact that so many people don't live in a place which is their own, and can have the conditions of their tentative permission to live there changed out from under them (with some restrictions of course). That is where people's energy should be directed, not at bullshit like these protesters are complaining about.

      However, a tangential problem gentrification which I don't quite have a solution to is this: even fixing the tax and rent problems, people born into expensive places, who grew up there and who have everyone and everything they love there, can still be forced out of their homes in a broader sense, if the place they were born becomes more popular (and thus more expensive) than when their family first moved there. That's the situation I'm in: two generations of my family have lived in my home town, I've spent my entire life here, all my friends, colleagues, career, romance, all of that is here, and on top of that it is a fantastically beautiful place which has set my standards for what a decent place to live looks like, and makes most of the rest of the country look intolerably ugly or plain to my eye. But despite two generations of our family living here, that beauty has made prices skyrocket, and all my cousins have either had to move somewhere I'd never want to live, or still live at home with their parents, because nobody can afford to live here on their own. I am only barely managing because I am more successful than any of my parents or their siblings were at my age.

      Doesn't something seem wrong about the fact that people are displaced from their home lands just because other, richer people from other lands want to live there and money is power so they get what they want and the locals have to GTFO? What if a bunch of rich Americans moved into some impoverished third world country, bought the place up, and within a generation or two the indigenous people who had lived there for centuries were forced to emigrate elsewhere? Something just like that happens at a smaller scale all the time, and from I'm not sure how to fix it even if the rental problem is fixed, but it's still a real problem. It's not a problem that "foreigners" can "immigrate", I'm not complaining about non-locals in my hometown or anything; but it's a problem that the locals can be displaced even if they would rather stay put, just because there's no way they can afford to live there.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    3. Re:Buying is not an easy option by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      the median home price in the US is 220k. If you are earning the median income, that is the amount of house you should be buying. It is not capitalism's fault that you want a house far more expensive than your income can support. Live within your means, which obviously you aren't if your long term goal is a house well outside of those means.

      Or, as the gp said, go get training to have a job that allows you to afford that house you want. If your rent is going to paying the mortgage of someone else, why not buy the place you are in (obviously, if your rent is equal to the mortgage, it basically works out). If you can't afford to buy it, then either you have a great deal on rent or you are, again, living in a place far nicer than your means allow.

    4. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      So only rich people get to live in nice places then? Some of those rich people better be prepared to have fun waiting tables and taking out the garbage then. Of course, unless those jobs pay well, they're not going to be rich for long, and won't be able to live there themselves, so those jobs had better pay well enough to afford to live in that area -- at which point, people who would otherwise be poor can take those same jobs and not have to move away.

      Of course, the way things are now, the waiters in rich places can manage to live there without being rich themselves because the rich people there can afford to snatch up more property than they need for their own use and then charge people to borrow it in an inescapable cycle that keeps them forever depending on the wages of their masters in order to afford the rents demanded by them. So basically, rich people and their servants who depend utterly upon them can afford to live in nice areas. I'm saying: get rid of the "having servants" option and watch shit sort itself out. Watch all the "help" move away since there's no way for them to live there, watch the rich move away because there's no one to serve them, watch the desirability drop, and prices with it, and watch wages rise to attract back the "help", and pretty soon anyone who can get a job there can afford to live there -- in their own place, not stuck in an inescapable cycle of dependency on someone else.

      The flip side of the problem in the first paragraph is that there is not cheap housing available to buy. I would gladly go in for a $220k home... if there were any where I live. The median price here is about $350k, and the lowest price you're likely to find on anything but a mobile (which I already have, and which leaves me still paying rent anyway) is about $300k, which is what I'm stretching for (on the expectation that my income will continue to increase and that will become possible in the future). But close to half of the people who live around here make less than I do, most of them significantly less. It's fine with you if half the people in an area just have no hope of ever establishing financial independence, in the sense of only paying for things they consume, and not for the never-ending (if they're lucky!) privilege of using someone else's property just because they have no hope of ever obtaining their own? That over half the population are perpetually dependent on the other half letting them use their property in exchange for their continued servitude?

      Someone making minimum wage should be able to afford some kind of tiny minimum-wage-level property of their own, and not be forced into renting (or homelessness) as their only options. I argue that eliminating rent would force the market to provide such housing, or else the people currently renting out properties would have useless properties generating no profit. But the people renting from them would suddenly be a huge market of people who need to buy, so the people in a power position in that arrangement -- the property owners -- would have to figure out some way to sell their property on some kind of terms that the only people who want to buy it (now that nobody's going to be buying it to rent it out) can afford it, or else make nothing off it and lose everything on their investment.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:Buying is not an easy option by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Yes. you got it right. Only rich people can live in expensive areas (whether you think those areas are nice or not is up to you). I could pay you 30 dollars an hour to wait tables, and there are cities in this country you still could not afford to rent in (or buy). A "nice" one bed room in NYC is 3300-4000 bucks a month (and I'm not talking about high end luxury condos). Low end service jobs do not pay you enough to live in nice areas in New York. On the other hand, those wages take you to a reasonable level if you don't feel the need to be in one of the most expensive areas in the world. Low end service jobs in NYC do pay you enough to commute though, and many people are willing to fill those jobs by commuting between home and work.

      There are homes near your area in your price range, but if you are stuck being in those neighborhoods you define as "nice", yeah, you probably are going to struggle to be there. I'd like to live on Jupiter Island myself, I'm just a few million short of a down payment for a home in the "nice" area. If I take a job in San Francisco, I may just be able to afford to live walking distance from my office. But that would mean I don't save a dime unless I get a bonus. On the other hand, if I'm willing to do a 30 minute commute each way, my costs drop by 50-60%. So I will commute so that I am not living paycheck to paycheck and have some money here and there to do things with my family. If I'm willing to extend the commute to an hour each way, it drops 80-85%. It's all about making a choice.

      Similarly, you have a choice. You can own your own slice of America and commute, or you can own a mobile home and be near your work. You seem to have made your choice. It's not right or wrong, just what suits you. But complaining that you need to be paid more so you can have and live in whatever home you want is a little disingenuous. Everywhere in the world (even very worker friendly countries like Japan) people handle this balance just fine. And in many places, a 90 minute commute in each direction is seen as acceptable(I know, the first time I complained about my 105 minute commute people told me it was only 10 minutes longer than average).

    6. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about a nice neighborhood vs a bad neighborhood, I'm talking about living in a general area or not. I work from home (telecommute) so proximity to work is not an issue for me at all, but even if it was, I'm just talking about living in the general area, not about living in the best neighborhood in that area. I'm also not talking about having a big or nice house; just having anything that belongs to me, anywhere in the general area. I have finally reached a point where that is just within my reach. About half of the people who live in the general area are below that point. So half the people who live here shouldn't live here, is that your opinion?

      Let's look at the Santa Barbara area because that's a great example of insane housing prices. The median home price in the general Santa Barbara area -- not the price of the homes in the nicest neighborhoods, just an average home, somewhere around there -- is over a million dollars. But the average income for someone living in the Santa Barbara area is nowhere near enough to even begin to buy a house in that range. It's not even enough to begin to buy a house in the low-end range for the area, which is still in the high hundreds of thousands. So the only hope for all those people who work there, but can't afford to buy there, if they actually want to stop having to run uphill against the threat of homelessness their entire lives, is to move out of the area -- like, to a distance that they can't work in the area any more.

      If everyone moved to somewhere that they could afford to buy, as you advise, then the bulk of the working population would be fleeing the city. And now all those people who are rich enough to live there... either have to wait their own tables, or start paying waiters enough that they can afford to buy some kind of housing there, or start selling their now-empty rental properties (now that everyone's moved out) on terms that waiters can afford. Or some combination of all of those things, to the effect that the empty formerly-rental properties get traded for people's labor, and in the end a portion of the home-owning population there is waiting the tables. Which would be great, and which is what should happen -- and if everyone took your advice, it's what would happen. So why doesn't it?

      Because they invented a loophole. "They" being the class of people wealthy enough to live there, collectively. They need someone to wait their tables, but they don't want to pay waiters what they would want to charge for their unused property -- they don't want to trade their capital for labor, they want to keep their capital and also get labor. They want a way to leverage their capital to get labor, without actually losing the capital in the process. So they say to the poor, "you can live in my unused property, if you work for me and give me most of the product of your labor". Just like a feudal lord: "you can live on my land, if you work my fields and give me most of what they yield". Of course I'm speaking there of the wealthy class collectively as one entity -- when broken down into individuals, the wage-serf gets to live in one lord's property, work for another lord, and split the product of his labor between the two (briefly holding possession of the landlord's share as he carries it to him from his employer), so it's not quite feudalism. But the dependency of the poor on the rich and the intentional inability of them to escape that cycle is the same.

      If we closed that loophole, eliminated rent, then people would have to do as you advise -- move somewhere they can buy, because there's no such thing as rent -- and then the consequent responses to that as outlined above would follow, leaving far more equitable arrangements than there were before.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    7. Re:Buying is not an easy option by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      you are full of it. If you work in Santa Barbara, a very congested area, and want to own your own hope with lots of land (as compared to a small condo or renting), you move to Lompoc. It takes 5 minutes searching to realize house prices drop by 80%, which means you can comfortably by there.

      Of course, now you have to commute each way to do that job. The people in Santa Barbara will pay higher prices to make up for this (just like wages are higher in NYC and SF vs Davis). Of course, if you decide to never have a skill and want to make a career of burger flipping, you will never own your own home. But then, home ownership isn't some kind of right.

      So yes, in the same way the people who wait tables in Manhattan for 100% of their income can't afford to live in Manhattan and commute an hour in each day, those who want to work in Santa Barbara (for whatever reason) and don't have a job that provides a very high income cannot. There is no loop hole. The rich aren't keeping you out by keeping homes empty. In most expensive areas, the vacancy rate is regularly less than 2%. It's that there are X number of Units and Y people, Y>>>X who would like to live there so it gets very expensive. This especially happens when you have a large business district that uses up most of the land, providing jobs to a greater area. Actually New York City, San Francisco, and Washington DC are exceptional examples of this, as all 3 areas (manhattan of NYC) see their population surge by a large multiple every day as commuters come in. Tokyo and London are the same. Wages are higher in every single one of these areas to make up for the time and cost of commuting. In Tokyo, almost every business actually pays you a addendum to your salary for the cost of public transport commuting on the cheapest route.

      Try again. Pick any area and I can tell you where working class wage people live. This one took about 45 seconds to debunk.

    8. Re:Buying is not an easy option by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      By the way, in case you don't realize it, eliminating rent does not solve the problem of the number of jobs in an area (for whatever reason) being far greater than the number of units in the immediate vicinity. Even if everyone owned in New York City, you would still have a commuter population many multiples the borough population. It's not a question of capital owners hoarding.

      In fact, in many areas where investors hold large amounts of property, the rents end up REDUCED. This is true in London and NYC in my experience. Neighborhoods with lots of investors who have to have units filled for income reasons are much easier to negotiate down10--25%. Add to that the incredibly low rental yield in these areas and you'll see you are basically getting a lot more "house" for your rental dollar.

      And the entire argument is based on whether or not buying is a good idea. Buying a home is a long term, leveraged investment. It needs to suit your lifestyle and you have to be committed to that one location. If I were able to telecommute, I would be living in areas much cheaper than your preferred neighborhood, because I can get a lot more open space for very little money.

    9. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You are the one who is full of it. I never said anything about "lots of land". I'm talking about just owning anything, so that you don't have to continuously pay to be not-homeless. This whole commuting tangent is a complete non-sequitur. The bottom line is this: when Alice rents from Bob, Alice pays a lot of money and never gets any property to her name, meanwhile Bob gets lots of money and never loses any property in the deal, and the only reason that arrangement is agreeable to anyone is because Bob has enough property that he can let others borrow it while Alice doesn't have any property and needs to borrow some. In a just world, the solution to that problem would be for Alice to trade Bob money for his property, and thus the property would naturally redistribute itself from those who have more than they need to those who need more than they have. Instead, with rent as an option, access to that kind of deal (a straight trade of money for property) can be priced out of the reach of many people, and replaced with an institute which funnels wealth from the people who have less to those who have more. That is a fundamental injustice, logistics about commuting or anything else aside.

      I'm not saying anybody should be able to live somewhere that they can't afford to live now. I'm not saying anything at all about who should live where. I'm saying, if Alice spends $X/mo to live in a place for Y years, then she should have $12XY equity to show for the money she's been paying, and eventually, after Z years of that, she should own outright a place worth $12XZ. Instead of spending Z years paying $X/mo only to be out $12XZ with nothing to show for it (while Bob has made $12XZ, not lost a bit of his property, and can now afford to buy another and compound the whole process).

      In response to your other post: buying a home should not be an "investment". That is exactly that kind of thinking which underlies this rent problem. People thinking that they should be able to make money off of just owning something (and letting others use it), rather than from selling something. Buying a home is not a means to make money, buying a home is a means to have a home to live in, without having to borrow someone else's for a steep price in perpetuity. Owning a home will save you money, sure -- by eliminating an expense that shouldn't exist in the first place. I want that opportunity to be available to everyone.

      And there's no reason that home ownership has to be long-term or commit you to a single location: the same people who currently profit from renting out property could perform a real useful function providing liquidity to the market, selling high on long terms, and buying back low on short terms. For people or properties with high turnover, where someone is getting value out of being able to buy and sell quick (eliminating the long-term commitment), those "rentiers" would be providing a real, useful function, and making the profit they deserve for that. But for people who would currently spend a decade renting in the same place that they would be buying if the barrier to entry weren't artificially raised by the existence of the rental market, the situation would be far more just: all the money they spend on having a place to live would be going toward getting them a place to live, and eventually they could stop paying, instead of being stuck in that cycle forever.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    10. Re:Buying is not an easy option by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      ok, I understand the problem, you don't know the finances of owning vs renting. If you did, you'd realize the reason you don't get to own anything when renting is because by and large you pay a fraction of the total cost of ownership and that extra the owner pays is why he gets equity and you don't. You also seem to think commuting is not relevant, though it is. Everyone commutes, whether it is 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or an hour. That commute can be walking across the street or taking the A1 in. But I found you a place to buy a home and own something while working in Santa Barbara. If you want to live in the nice areas of Santa Barbara, where homes are a million bucks on average, get a better job or save more money. But it is eminently possible to live/work in the Santa Barbara area and own.

      Now the quick math, which seeing as how you own a place is not very relevant. Buying a home usually takes about 4% to the broker, 1% to the bank for fees, 20% down, and then a 4.3% interest (if conforming, but if it isn't because of a lower down payment, welcome to at least an extra 100 points) on the home. Let's say you don't have to make a down payment at all, finance the entire home (now you need mortgage insurance, that adds to the rate), and you finance the broker fee and bank fees (i.e. let's take a loan like it's 2006). You have a 105% mortgage at , best, 5.5%. So in interest alone, in the first year, you will pay about 1/20th the cost of your home. Now add in property tax (usually 1.2-1.5% the price), and basic maintenance (another 0.5 to 1% depending, it can be much more if this is a condo), and you will need to have at least 7.5% the cost of your house before you generate even 1 dollar of equity. Hurrah for owning.

      Now I have the numbers on hand for London and NYC, which are huge renters markets (where you want to force everyone into ownership which is probably financially destructive to them), the price/rent ratio is around 40:1. This means a renter pays only 2.5% or less than HALF the interest on the mortgage for the owner. In addition, you get these nice things like if something breaks, you don't pay to fix it, the flexibility to move within a month, and the ease of saving a significant portion of your income that would have gone to the bank as interest/mortgage insurance, etc. This is buying in the real world, which you are supposedly part of but seem very ignorant of. Maybe you were lied to and told your rent is just paying someone else's mortgage, but usually it doesn't come anywhere close in the big rental markets (small markets are a different world, you can get price/rent ratios of 20:1 and suddenly buying as soon as you can makes sense).

      So first let's see about all the people who rent who can't buy in your world and are now just homeless. First, there is every young person who doesn't have the savings for a downpayment. Not everyone has a rich uncle to get them into an apartment during their first job. Even if you got banks and mortgage investors to allow the extension of loans with no down payment, they can't afford the basic costs of getting a mortgage. And if you are going to allow >100% LTV, you are living in a fantasy land. So they are just screwed. Of course, the cost now of moving between areas is so steep, it'll be hard to move quickly between jobs or get retrained unless you have all the facilities you will ever need right where you are. What happens for college students who are just coming out of high school? Oh, sorry, no college for you unless you want to be homeless during this time? Most colleges don't support dorms for everyone, instead allowing a private rental market provide places to live.

      Ah but you expect prices to drop if we outlaw renting (because you know, rentiers in expensive areas are "making you pay their mortgage"). This is great, the prices of property will fall, and of course, to make those areas similarly priced for renters and owners, the prices will fall 50-65% percent. This sounds awesome. It's exactly what happened to Ja

    11. Re:Buying is not an easy option by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You are just pushing the problem back one step. My critique of rent is not only housing rent, though that's one of the biggest problem areas. It's anything where someone with some form of wealth "earns" more wealth merely by letting others borrow their wealth, which moves wealth from those with less (who need to borrow it) to those with more (who can afford to lend it). You're saying that the rentier is just passing along (some of) the costs of financing his purchase like interest... but interest is itself a form of rent. Interest is rent on money, and I have just as much objection to that as I do rent on real estate. The banks are using their wealth advantage to extract more wealth from those who have less (the home buyers), and some of those home buyers (notably, only those who can afford more home(s) than they need for personal use, otherwise they would have to be homeless while renting out the home they would otherwise use themselves) pass the buck and use their wealth advantage to extract more wealth from those who have less than them (the renters). It's still the same problem.

      And your talk of saving money renting vs buying (your "40% the price") only makes any sense if you assume that everybody will be paying housing expenses indefinitely. You are looking at monthly cost of housing; I am looking at monthly cost of housing times the number of months until I can stop paying it. By that latter metric, renting costs infinite money, because you will never get to stop. Buying on the other hand costs only a finite amount of money, even if it's more per month than renting. When I get to the point where I can start paying down a real house on its own land, I intend to pay a lot more per month than I am paying to rent right now (the big chunk of my income currently doing toward savings for a down payment), because that will minimize the amount of time it takes to pay it off and the amount of interest (i.e. rent) I will have to pay. But that means, if everything goes well, I will not have any housing expenses at all for the last 20-30 years of my life. Instead of getting kicked to the curb when I'm too old and broken to work and thus can't pay rent anymore.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  171. Re: So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    High speed rail is a separate boondoggle which won't pay for itself, and costs billions that could/would instead be spent upgrading Caltrain and Bart and other more useful rail. Caltrain improvement projects have mostly been put on hold or scrapped because of the HSR stuff.

    And yes, people in Palo Alto, Mountain View and much of the rest of Silicon Valley don't like the HSR because they propose to cut the cities in half with huge earthen berms (a big wall, literally) without helping to solve any of the areas transit needs. So, yea, that will piss the people living there off.

  172. Re: So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked in blue collar jobs carrying stuff about, etc. in the classical backbreaking sense. It was tiring. Then I worked in the tech industry. I found that it was equally exhausting, though less about muscles and more about stress and lack of sleep.

    So, latching onto 'backbreaking' when it is obviuosly meant to mean 'lots of hard work' seems a mite silly to me at least.

  173. Re:Impeach Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get them to impeach Obama instead, it would be awsome...

  174. MajorMedia by currentnewsofindia · · Score: 1

    It's an open secret that major media have a soft spot for hard-right politics. On Thanksgiving eve, the Gannett-owned Asheville Citizen-Times included a 48-page pullout of Republican Party propaganda disguised as news. So many people complained about the pullout that even the Asheville TV news station : Business News India Online Indian News

  175. Re:Technocrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technocrats(Nuclear Engineers) don't know how to run a country and it would be worse then the USSR...

  176. Re: So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 toda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High speed rail is a separate boondoggle which won't pay for itself, and costs billions that could/would instead be spent upgrading Caltrain and Bart and other more useful rail. Caltrain improvement projects have mostly been put on hold or scrapped because of the HSR stuff.

    And yes, people in Palo Alto, Mountain View and much of the rest of Silicon Valley don't like the HSR because they propose to cut the cities in half with huge earthen berms (a big wall, literally) without helping to solve any of the areas transit needs. So, yea, that will piss the people living there off.

    I live in Los Altos and think we can't get high speed rail fast enough.

    The local tea-baggers love to hate on HSR and call themselves democrats. Fuck. Them.

  177. Stop Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things are security sieves, unprotected against physical access by virtue of being cars. Enough people hate them that viruses are going to appear, and then it'll be game over for self-driving cars because when they crash, they'll actually crash.

    The fact that these are computers on wheels and that computers have yet to be made virus-proof is the drunken bellowing elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about.

  178. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increased property taxes would force Google employees to pay their fair share and shut the protesters up.

  179. Re:Lets make a bet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If things don't change(Political Policy) their very will could lead to U.S Civil War 2.0 or unrest...

  180. Re:Mountain view California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good ol' Silicon Valley Politics will fall and fail, to get back at Google vote against "State of Jefferson"...

  181. increased automation plus increased population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we've had these problems and they will continue... just now automation is taking more jobs at a faster pace than during the industrial revolution. scary times.

  182. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who else would be opposed to self driving cars?

    Admiral Adama. Sarah Connor. Every bad guy on "Knight Rider."

  183. Self-driving cars can save lives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one had the time to remember that the initial idea of a self-driving car is to save lives! We already live in a world dominated by automobiles. Our cities are all projected for cars and not for people, and many people die every day because of that!

    Prosperity always changes the world, and some won't like this changes. But prosperity always change for the good of the masses. The kings don't need any prosperity to live like a king! This rich and smart guys don't need any prosperity to have a better life! They do all this hard work for the good of everybody.

    Any old TV or car always had blood in their components. This blood exists because this commodities, like gold or any high value "ingredient", when "generated" in low development countries, people will have much less rights, and will cost much less. What creates this "blood" in commodities is the low development and bad politics in this countries, and this exists from cotton to t-shirts, from gold to diamonds, from bananas to pigs! Any commodities with high global demand and value, that can be produced by low value jobs will have "blood" or low quality life in thei traces. But don't think that this kind low responsibility with human rights and quality of jobs don't happens inside US! This is a politics issue and not a prosperity issue! Job quality is all about politics and not about capitalism. Capitalists will always look for the lowest way to produce, and if they don't do that the com

  184. You have issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google might be trying to keep their employees away from the riff-raff.

    But it is quite apparent that *you* are the riff-raff people are trying to stay away from.

    Here's some help. Shave that beard. It looks ridiculous. And stop hanging out in coffee shops.

    If you're not shaving and brushing your teeth at least once a day, please do.

    And it's not a terrible thing to wear deodorant, too.

  185. Re:Thugocracy in Action by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    If you think that's bad, just wait til their wish comes true and those companies actually leave.

    Remember Detroit? Yeah well they were kind of hostile against the auto companies (mainly in the form of unions and legislation pricing themselves out of the market,) and then people wonder why Detroit is in the mess it is in now.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  186. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google probably does not want to run a public bus service. That is not their business.

    No, and this would ruin the brand cohesion of their solar power, self-driving car, shape-shifting webpage, intelligent thermostat and web search offering.

  187. Boycotting the protestors. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Maybe some analogue to these guys?
    As for the article, my response:

    His two hour commute - Well duh it can be considered research! If he's 'driving' a prototype self driving car you need it to be able to handle all sorts of situations, including rush hour traffic. Given that accidents are still a low order event(most people make it through without an accident each day), you need a LOT of hours in the vehicle to get statistically valid results. Plus, as a developer he can use the time to muse on optimization schemes, notice anything out of spec, etc...

    Association with the military- Google bought a military research company. They don't even consider that maybe Google was after the research to reuse it for civilian purposes. Technology that can deliver a missile to a target can be used to help navigate a drone, whether it's a spyplane or cargo craft.

    77 unit apartment building - 'cyber-capitalist utopia'? What the hell is this supposed to mean? Searching around I found this description of the buildings. Seems to have some neat sustainability ideas.

    The Nautilus Group is composed of designers and builders who have created military installations, malls, and hospitals. Levandowski is now making his contribution to the further sterilization and gentrification of Downtown Berkeley and Shattuck Avenue.

    So they're professionals. So frigging what? The military needs buildings as well, and generally speaking has the same demands as any other business - outside of very specific buildings(such as munitions dumps), their warehouses, offices, and housing are no different than civilian versions.

    "The proposed project is a testament to the arrogance, disconnection, and luxury of the ruling class. Growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people allows them, somehow, to pretend that the planet is not being ravaged by the same economy they depend on for their wealth, comfort, and safety."

    ...So doing something about our resource usage/despoiling the planet is 'pretending'? Students and 'young professionals' who are poor enough to work on a rooftop vegetable garden are the 'ruling class'? I'm not going to say that there will be poor people living in these apartments, but they probably won't be .1%ers in the states either.

    He had Google Glasses over his eyes, carried his baby in his arm, and held a tablet with his free hand. As he descended the stairs with the baby, his eyes were on the tablet through the prism of his Google Glasses, not on the life against his chest.

    Oh my god, if he's not paying attention to the baby he's a robot!!! Never mind the physical sensations providing constant feedback about the kid's status.

    There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine nor will his children.

    As has been mentioned elsewhere, not much gold in electronics today, it's too expensive.

    In short, sounds like the protestors are a group of delusional, self absorbed luddites.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  188. It costs 10x as much to live in the first world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That brings it back down to 50%. When you can rent an apartment for the equivalent of $10 a month, earning $2 a week means you're going to need two jobs to afford the rent. When you can rent an appartment for $1200 a month, earning $250 a week means you're going to need two jobs to afford the rent.

    It doesn't mean you're 125x wealthier than the bloke on $2.

  189. These protestors should live rent free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can get 3 square meals and 1 hour of exercise in the yard each day.

  190. No more parking tickets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine, the car would drop you off, then go park anywhere, and move whenever it needed to.

    Then come pick you up.

    With no more parking tickets, where would major cities get most of their revenue?

  191. Take from the people and give to the rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And watch it not trickle down. Is starting to unravel. Before the revenge is over it will be biblical.

  192. Re:Technocrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the politicians and lawyers we have running it now are doing a great fucking job.

  193. Company busses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, the logging companies do this all the time; picking up workers along their homes' roads and 4-wheeling up to where the work is... The crew truck is commonly nicknamed a 'crummy.' Also, some fallers have, er, trouble keeping a drivers license, so the truck comes to them.

  194. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read TFA. This is not what these people are protesting over.

  195. Great spirits have always encountered violent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The quote for me at the bottom of this page is:

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein

  196. Google - just buy their power supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then tell the city to back off or their rates will quadruple (city's not the people).

    City wants to play power-monger, show them power-monger.

  197. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can confirm that itinerary you posted. Last year I went to a conference at the Computer History Museum, which is basically a block away from Google's campus. Much like you said I took a bus to caltrain, caltrain to a bus, and a bus to the computer history museum. The bus drove through Google's campus, so I could've got off there and ridden one of their campus bikes if I'd wanted to visit them... total journey time was indeed around two hours. When I came home I instead convinced someone to just give me a ride in his car. :)

  198. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    No to mention that not only to those people not get bus ride, free food, or (are you kidding me) nap pods, but they also probably get paid a small fraction to do a job that is likely a lot less rewarding and more physically demanding (and many times more than 60h).

    Soft and spoiled isn't the word I would use. Privileged entitled asshole is I think more descriptive.

    Maybe it is this kind of attitude that gets people all protesty...

  199. Re:defeating public transit, insultation, privileg by bmajik · · Score: 1

    You make some good points about the historical subsidization of automobiles via the road infrastructure. People should really internalize this basic truth -- that government spending always subsidizes something at the expense of something else, and therefore reinforces some behaviors at the expense of some other behaviors.

    The rest of your post is stupid.

    I worked at Microsoft in Seattle for a while. MS had a policy of giving free bus passes to any employee. I took the bus on many occasions, especially if my car was broken.

    Taking the bus took longer than driving. That's when everything worked perfectly. The bus route I needed came past my house once per hour. If I missed the bus (my fault), I was losing an hour of work day.

    I also needed to take a transfer to actually get the rest of the way to work. The transfer overlap in the schedule was close, it was different on different days/times of the year, and if the bus came past my house too late, I missed my transfer, and I sat at a bus stop for 30-60 minutes. More wasted time.

    Getting home in the evening was even worse. Sometimes the busses just didn't show up at all. More wasted time -- both mine and the people who I needed to work with to get alternate arrangements to get me home. And wasted time for the people who needed me to leave by a particular time to get where I was going by a particular time.

    I gave up on the Metro King County bus system because it wasn't ON TIME and it wasn't RELIABLE. I had better options, so I used them.

    People of Google caliber need transportation that is ON TIME and RELIABLE. Their time is worth a lot of money, to Google and to the larger economy. Not to mention themselves.

    I've always assumed that people put up with bad transit because they are stupid or because they cannot afford better options. People who put up with bad transit for some weird notion of "public good" or "higher purpose" baffle me. I hope nobody actually does that.

    You're given a very short time on this planet to do all of the good things you can possibly do for yourself, your friends, your family, and society.

    Wasting time dealing with inefficient transit isn't a good use of your life.

    Google caliber people realize that. Certainly, the people behind the Google bus program realize that.

    Finally, there are some other positive impacts that come from having a private commuter service. In addition to being more time efficient for google and google employees, employees on a private bus can get more work done better because

    - wifi
    - they can collaborate with other employees on the bus
    - they can assume some level of company privacy
    - they -- critically -- are not dealing with shitheads.

    Another problem with subsidized public transit isn't the elite looking down on the regular, as you posit, but the shitheads that ruin public transit for regular and elite alike.

    I have a _very_ low opinion of people who think they have a God-given right to harass me. If at all possible, I don't use public transit in American cities unless I'm carrying a gun.

    "Regular" people aren't and have never been a problem for nerds. Obnoxious people are a problem for everybody, and the "elite" have options to avoid them. They'd be foolish to not take advantage of those options.

    Busses will never be as efficient as cars for getting a _specific_ person from A to B, unless you add significant time costs for retrieving/storing the car at A, B, or both. Busses that share the road network with cars will always lose to cars, ignoring parking time costs. Efficient mass transit is disjoint from road networks (e.g. subways)

    However, if you can optimize your bus route to closely match the employees you want to move, and you can make the bus experience as productive as possible for them, the productive time they gain back using the bus can offset the time delta they lose vs. a car. (And again, storing/retrieving a car in the bay area is a real consideration)

    I've ridden

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  200. Trotsky's Icepick by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    So when the refrigerator was invented, the ice box manufactures union should have lobbied government to create laws making these "electric" refrigerators illegal, protecting the millions of jobs in the whole chain of ice delivery and ice box construction industry, as it is their god given right to sell ice to ice boxes.

    You sound like the damn RIAA and MPAA.

    1. Re:Trotsky's Icepick by admiralh · · Score: 1

      Strawman argument. I most certainly did not say that the new technology should be banned.

      What I argued was that technological advancement does not reward all equally, and in fact some individuals are harmed by it. This fact must be understood and appreciated to maintain social order.

      The term "Luddite" has become a pejorative, but you should look at the history of the Luddites and the social ills and inequalities they were fighting against. They were much more than the stereotype.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
  201. Google Earth by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I mean really, doesn't Google already own a hollowed out volcano for this sort of thing. If not, what are doing?

    Also for protecting their water shuttle from protesters, let me suggest sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads...

    Do no Evil indeed!

  202. What about "shareholder value"??? by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    Seems the solution is Google builds "dense urban housing" on their campus a la Foxconn. They save the money for the shuttles, their fuel, and the shuttle drivers and return it to the shareholders - and the rest of San Francisco doesn't have to worry about upward pressure on rents, the blasting of their neighborhoods with "dense urban housing", or the Congo.

    Handy double-edged sword, that "shareholder value".

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  203. Re:Thugocracy in Action by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Let me make it simple for your simple mind. How would self driving cars affect unionized people who get paid to drive cars?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  204. Why I hate SF by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Public transit in SF just plain sucks.

    It sucks because the public puts up with it sucking.

    When someone tries to get employees to and from work efficiently with their own busses, their employees get harassed by SF "activists" (code for people on various form of mental/physical disability who are more often than not merely junkies, who choose not to work).

    That's all, nothing new about SF to see here, unless you've a great deal vested in deluding yourself.

  205. Moving to Austin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't move to Austin. We have enough California libtards screwing things up already and, given the local geography, not really enough space to build the infrastructure to support any more. I hear Dallas and Houston are nice though.

    Austinite

  206. Google expand your Pittsburgh office by Shred303 · · Score: 1

    Google we have plenty of low cost housing and tech workers here.

  207. Who gives a rotund rodents rectum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares if these big tech companies supply buses for their workers...?

    It's a case of the have not frigging whinging...again.

  208. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if that's ever going to happen.

    I ride ACE daily for certain times during the year, and it's slow and creaky, but basically reliable (I can use Amtrak for the same route, fortunately).

    I would love to see a true bidirectional high-speed rail - I've used them in Japan and elsewhere, and liked them. Even Acela on the east coast is better than what we have in most of the US, which is single-tracked, siding-dependent passenger rail. The rail infrastructure works great for goods, not so well for people on a schedule.

    I'd pay to use a Google-bus or something similar - anything is better than being stuck in traffic twice a day to go 16 miles, losing almost two hours a day. When I take the train, the total travel time is just over half an hour....

  209. Re:Thugocracy in Action by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Increased property taxes would force Google employees to pay their fair share and shut the protesters up.

    Presumably they already are. The magic of percentages is that if the value of something goes up, you make more money. You don't have to raise the tax rate as well. I'm sure the assessor is valuing the properties higher and as a result, they are collecting more tax.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  210. Screw San Fran by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Not welcome? Bail outta there! Plenty of better places to locate. Don't move to Maryland though. It's a Democratic machine and they'll ride you into the ground with taxes and other BS.

  211. Revenge of the nerds!!! by jbgeek · · Score: 1

    Greetings cool-guy bullies who used to make fun of all the kids into computers and math!!! All your apartment are belong to us!!! :-p :-p :-p

  212. cue the jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about polack engineers

  213. Re:Thugocracy in Action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they're vineyards.

  214. Re:So I was sitting behind a Gbus/Fbus on 85 today by arctus · · Score: 1

    Yes drag me into a semantic argument based on my word choices...

    Would you prefer mind breaking? The point is, those perks are subsidized services for employees so they can lure you in, work you numb, then discard you in a few years for the next set of naive drones.

    If working a 100 hour week makes you feel entitled to create, "son you don't know what real work is" posts, great, but I'm not impressed. I do have perspective, I have worked hard manual labor jobs...which is why I have a Masters in CS so I can sit in a cozy office and read posts complaining about exclusive employee perk systems...

    You act like having an office job is a privilege, any idiot can slide into a cubicle these days, if you're stuck hanging dry wall that's your life choices that led you there and I could really give a damn.

  215. Let's take a side on the issue. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Rising real estate prices are good for every homeowner -- even these who don't realize it.

    I'd love it if the price of my house rose 1000%. If increased property taxes are a hardship for anyone, they can simply take out a reverse mortgage, and use a small fraction of their increased property value to pay the higher taxes. They will still be far ahead of the game, compared to a scenario where their property value remained flat.

    If you think rising real estate prices are bad, conversely you should think falling real estate prices are good. Nope... we tried that in 2008; it was called the Great Recession.

    Renters are a somewhat different story. People who can't afford to rent in chic and tony neighborhoods don't rent in chic and tony neighborhoods. What if the neighborhood around them is transformed into a chic and tony neighborhood while they're living there? They might have to move to a neighborhood that's not chic and tony. Other than the inconvenience of moving, they're no worse off than before. Nowhere is it written that renters who start out unable to afford chic and tony neighborhoods have a right to stay in their neighborhood after it becomes chic and tony -- especially because enforcing such a rule would prevent all neighborhoods, everywhere, from improving.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.