Do you really think that NYC is going to remain affordable with all 20 million people living in the greater metro area forced to live within the city proper? Smart growth people want us all to live in cramped little Yuppie villages. Fuck that.
You don't have to force people to live according to your whims to help the environment. There are other solutions.
They don't call it reboot, they call it a "re-IPL" [Initial Program Load] and depending on the machine it takes up to 30+ people, each with specialized knowledge about a specific part of the process. [you can mod me funny, but THIS IS NOT A JOKE]
Eh? I used to IPL the system (VSE/ESA ES9000) every week and it was just one guy (me) when I was an operator.
The big gas guzzlers drivers are stupid, if you happen to drive a fuel-efficient car you can make a killing on the cheap gas and live far better than you would in Europe.
Linux is slowly killing off the UNIX competitors... it's killing competition, exactly what it's supposed to create. I hope you're all happy, you're getting exactly what you deserve. Eventually all the other Unices will disappear too, Sun will be the last one to go.
So Linux/free software has resulted in less, not more, competitors.
Humor is our best weapon against terrorism. If we laugh at them, then we aren't terrified and since terror is the goal in terrorism, the terrorists will have failed their mission.
Most people I see joking are UKers anyway. Look up the term "stiff upper lip".
Progressive taxation is just the collection side. The reason they get more than they're worth is because their politicians bring in the pork. For the real insights, look at how the unfair redistribution of wealth to Red States exactly correlates with whether a state voted for Bush or Gore. Exactly. With a $2.5T expenditure, and Bush's tax cuts, financed by trillions in debt, Bush has created a tax system to subsidize the growth of his base, at the expense of his opponents.
I believe that "blue states" still get more tax dollars per capita then "red states". The measurement the parent poster was citing was tax dollars back per tax dollars in. That is skewed because "blue states" often have higher incomes. Connecticut receives the least per dollar, but it's also the richest state in the country. And trust me, I dunno about red states but blue states throw most of what they get down the drain.
Spin all you want, but the complaint is not even with that socialist "from each according to their means, to each according to their need" principle that Bush's tax system applies in full execution. No, the complaint is about the lies and hypocrisy of "small government" Republicans, and their $2.5T subsidy package.
Many true conservatives aren't happy with the current republicans and feel they are trading tax dollars for votes. I suppose that include me.
Blue States vote for government to provide paid services.
Not quite, here in Boston they seem to vote for crappy services to provide inefficient unions with jobs at the rest of the citizen's expense.
Well now I know that environmentally conscious Slashdotters would never drive a car faster than 55 MPH as it is a tremendous waste of gas (35 mph is actually the most fuel efficient speed).
Most American cities (that I've been to) have commuter rail, and it is generally the easiest way to get to the city centers.
Regional travel can be handled by bus and automobile just fine, or by passenger rail when it is available. In the US we use our rail network overwhelmingly for freight, which is far more effecient than building a rail network used for the simple purpose of moving people around, which could be done easily by car.
Some airlines here in the states are working on "regional" air travel with smaller jets.
Either way, a free and competitive transportation market will take care of many of the problems. But building a train just for the sheer purpose of having a train is silly.
Runways and airports are a fraction of the amount of resources that hundreds and hundreds of miles of track require and you know it. If the track is damaged in an one place, the entire railway is unusable.
Perhaps we should concentrate on getting airport waiting times down rather than creating trains just so we can say we have trains? I mean you would admit that if the airport could have gone smoother, you could've made the trip in 45 minutes (plus a little waiting time which is probably inevitable).
Passenger rail can work in certain situations but it is far more efficient to move freight by rail and move humans by other means, except for regional travel (which rail/bus/automobiles are more efficient).
No, I'd blame American consumers who don't relish the thought of sharing a passenger train with some stinky Slashdot poster. I don't blame them, personally.
You cannot beat the freedom of automobile travel. You can make the cars more environmentally friendly, but cars will never be supplanted for a bunch of silly trains.
The US has the best mass transit system in the world, you can go anywhere you want, day or night in complete climate controlled comfort with the music set to whatever you like.
Passenger trains themselves are obsolete technology, we have these giant flying trains called jetliners that don't need thousands of miles of specially built track.
The US still beats all of those countries in internet penetration.
We got people hooked on dialup when dialup was all the rage. This is one of the reasons broadband is lagging, another is that the US has some of the cheapest rates for local calls in the world.
Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.
Which is due to the progressive nature of the income tax. Are you arguing we should have a flat tax?
Connecticut gets an even worse deal. Of course the entire Northeast just pisses it's money away on incompetent shit like the big dig all the time. I'd rather the federal government took the money it was going to give Massachusetts, put it on a big barge and sink it in the ocean. At least it would teach us a lesson.
Ok, the whole route loses money, but that particular service does make money. Needless to say, we should force Amtrak to become more efficient and provide service where it really is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think that NYC is going to remain affordable with all 20 million people living in the greater metro area forced to live within the city proper? Smart growth people want us all to live in cramped little Yuppie villages. Fuck that.
You don't have to force people to live according to your whims to help the environment. There are other solutions.
They don't call it reboot, they call it a "re-IPL" [Initial Program Load] and depending on the machine it takes up to 30+ people, each with specialized knowledge about a specific part of the process. [you can mod me funny, but THIS IS NOT A JOKE]
Eh? I used to IPL the system (VSE/ESA ES9000) every week and it was just one guy (me) when I was an operator.
Well without our oil dollars, they won't have the money to finance a lot of their terror operations.
The big gas guzzlers drivers are stupid, if you happen to drive a fuel-efficient car you can make a killing on the cheap gas and live far better than you would in Europe.
And what if I did not want to give up my car so a bunch of Birkenstock phonies could pretent they were living in Disneyland?
Linux is slowly killing off the UNIX competitors... it's killing competition, exactly what it's supposed to create. I hope you're all happy, you're getting exactly what you deserve. Eventually all the other Unices will disappear too, Sun will be the last one to go.
So Linux/free software has resulted in less, not more, competitors.
Humor is our best weapon against terrorism. If we laugh at them, then we aren't terrified and since terror is the goal in terrorism, the terrorists will have failed their mission.
Most people I see joking are UKers anyway. Look up the term "stiff upper lip".
Progressive taxation is just the collection side. The reason they get more than they're worth is because their politicians bring in the pork. For the real insights, look at how the unfair redistribution of wealth to Red States exactly correlates with whether a state voted for Bush or Gore. Exactly. With a $2.5T expenditure, and Bush's tax cuts, financed by trillions in debt, Bush has created a tax system to subsidize the growth of his base, at the expense of his opponents.
I believe that "blue states" still get more tax dollars per capita then "red states". The measurement the parent poster was citing was tax dollars back per tax dollars in. That is skewed because "blue states" often have higher incomes. Connecticut receives the least per dollar, but it's also the richest state in the country. And trust me, I dunno about red states but blue states throw most of what they get down the drain.
Spin all you want, but the complaint is not even with that socialist "from each according to their means, to each according to their need" principle that Bush's tax system applies in full execution. No, the complaint is about the lies and hypocrisy of "small government" Republicans, and their $2.5T subsidy package.
Many true conservatives aren't happy with the current republicans and feel they are trading tax dollars for votes. I suppose that include me.
Blue States vote for government to provide paid services.
Not quite, here in Boston they seem to vote for crappy services to provide inefficient unions with jobs at the rest of the citizen's expense.
The only reason Red States get more than they paid in is because of progressive taxation. You're complaining about something your "side" supports.
Well now I know that environmentally conscious Slashdotters would never drive a car faster than 55 MPH as it is a tremendous waste of gas (35 mph is actually the most fuel efficient speed).
Most American cities (that I've been to) have commuter rail, and it is generally the easiest way to get to the city centers.
Regional travel can be handled by bus and automobile just fine, or by passenger rail when it is available. In the US we use our rail network overwhelmingly for freight, which is far more effecient than building a rail network used for the simple purpose of moving people around, which could be done easily by car.
Some airlines here in the states are working on "regional" air travel with smaller jets.
Either way, a free and competitive transportation market will take care of many of the problems. But building a train just for the sheer purpose of having a train is silly.
Runways and airports are a fraction of the amount of resources that hundreds and hundreds of miles of track require and you know it. If the track is damaged in an one place, the entire railway is unusable.
Perhaps we should concentrate on getting airport waiting times down rather than creating trains just so we can say we have trains? I mean you would admit that if the airport could have gone smoother, you could've made the trip in 45 minutes (plus a little waiting time which is probably inevitable).
Passenger rail can work in certain situations but it is far more efficient to move freight by rail and move humans by other means, except for regional travel (which rail/bus/automobiles are more efficient).
No, I'd blame American consumers who don't relish the thought of sharing a passenger train with some stinky Slashdot poster. I don't blame them, personally.
You cannot beat the freedom of automobile travel. You can make the cars more environmentally friendly, but cars will never be supplanted for a bunch of silly trains.
Because passenger rail is a completely outmoded and backwards form of transporation, that's why.
And yet that is still about 1/3 the speed of a typical jetliner. Nothing to brag about.
You aren't taking into account the pollution and environmental disruption involved with building and maintaining thousands of miles of track.
The US has the best mass transit system in the world, you can go anywhere you want, day or night in complete climate controlled comfort with the music set to whatever you like.
Passenger trains themselves are obsolete technology, we have these giant flying trains called jetliners that don't need thousands of miles of specially built track.
Oh please, even my old Windows-hating boss used to need to use it constantly. Mostly due to the inferior applications. Give it a rest, Lin-o-nut.
And we just haven't heard of them. I personally can recall dozens of times.
The US still beats all of those countries in internet penetration.
We got people hooked on dialup when dialup was all the rage. This is one of the reasons broadband is lagging, another is that the US has some of the cheapest rates for local calls in the world.
Connecticut gets an even worse deal. Of course the entire Northeast just pisses it's money away on incompetent shit like the big dig all the time. I'd rather the federal government took the money it was going to give Massachusetts, put it on a big barge and sink it in the ocean. At least it would teach us a lesson.
"Metroliner Service between Boston and Washington, DC, makes a profit of about $5 per passenger".
Ok, the whole route loses money, but that particular service does make money. Needless to say, we should force Amtrak to become more efficient and provide service where it really is necessary.
Educate yourself.
To break the monotony, I try and take country roads rather than highways. It's a great relaxer depending on how the density is where I'm driving.