The rumor sites were filled with speculation of an iPhone. I don't see where it all came from, since the announcement from Moto and Apple only said that they were developing iTunes for phones. I think a lot of people used this Forbes story as their source and went rampant with speculation.
I started getting worried when I realized they were buying everyone under the sun. This was a few years ago. Fortunately, I rarely game anymore, so I don't feel bad missing the 'hot new EA game'.
I also remember my friend poking fun at how EA games start with a really short video by the creators followed by a much longer video from EA ("EA Games... Challenge Everything). Even though EA only published some of these games, their video was much longer.
Hehe, I've noticed a few myself, and fortunately I often have a camera around when it happens. It isn't always BSoDs, though, there are often other error messages that are still funny.
Anyway, I don't know if they still are in business. This could just be some artifacts left on the web from sites that haven't been updated referring to them. If you do a search for Godfathers in Bellevue, you get a bunch of results. However, I know for a fact that C, D, and I are all closed down. If you click on the name, you can find the websites that include that address. It seems like the websites are just out of date (mostly the SuperPages).
Okay, you probably have a point. I'd like to add a few things, though. First, not only do they pay different property tax, there are also things like car registration fees and such that are separate from the city and suburbs. Also, the state might pay for the freeways, but the cities still have to maintain roads that outsides are using heavily that lead from the freeways to locations in the cities. City dwellers are less likely to use the freeway (or, use it for less distance). Ideally roads and mass transit would be tolled so you pay for what you use.
That said, city dwellers are subsidizing the freeway system more than the rural people are subsidizing mass transit and inner city transit.
The US is still very dynamic. The Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 1.2 million people over the next 20 years (a big increase for us).
Well, Venice may not be a large commercial or industrial center, but they also don't have a metro system in place (underground railway). Venice itself may not be able to scale well, but if you have a system with a fast, high-capacity rail, then it can accommodate a lot of people and move them around fast. Most US cities are not much larger than 1-3 million. The greater Seattle area is falls between that range. Also, if we need super large cities like LA, then you can link six or so of these cities together in a large loop (putting the station at the central hub of each smaller area). (I can't find the picture that illustrates this)
Huge super stores could still have a place in a car free city (well, it would be harder to transport your items home, though). If they aren't too gaudy, they could be put in with the normal buildings in the city, else just put them on the outer rim along with the heavy industry. I don't think everything is moving towards the huge super retailers, though. A lot of urban people are against Walmart and there seems to be a lot of people where I am from that prefer smaller, more local stores. I personally would rather by fresh herbs from a local store than travel a few districts over on the subway to get a pound of cilantro for $.15.
People could still have their own house and lawn in these cities, although it would become more expensive. The zoning laws wouldn't have to require multistory, multifamily buildings, but then you wouldn't have much density in those areas without.
That is the idea, though. If we build these rail systems in urban areas (or other very efficient means of transport, although underground rail is still the most ideal), people will congregate around the stations. If you put a station in a more suburban area, it is likely that over the years more dense housing would be built around it. People would eventually want to move where transport is good, especially if it is hard to get to the station with a car (or if it is too congested for parking near the station).
I've lived in a suburb my whole life (although now I live on a university campus). I hope to move to the city this summer (well, I'm in a city now, but it is only temporary, and I am sent home over breaks) and I don't plan on returning. I didn't mind growing up in the suburbs until about halfway through high school when I got annoyed with how hard it was to visit places away from home (because I don't like driving). When I think back, though, it would be easier to live in a city and travel. I've been to Venice and it was a wonderful city, I'd love to live in a European-style, huma
The largest problem with most bus systems is that they run on the same roads as normal cars. This makes it impossible for busses to ever be faster than cars. Impossible. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have separation of transit systems. Operating on different levels is one of the best ways to ensure peace. Look at Venice, they have heavy foot traffic on the streets and the canal system. This divided system allows freight to be ferried most of the way and then carried only a short distance. This leaves the people walking around in peace. This is essential for mass transit to coexist well with roads and cars. Look at San Francisco's BART system, it runs down the middle of the freeway and is able to go very fast.
Well, I do think the population is growing. Not only are people living longer and still having kids, but there is also still a large influx of immigrants. California alone is booming because of all the incoming Latinos. High population isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying that there will always be people for sprawl (until an energy crunch or prohibitive prices prevent it).
Transfers are not that big of a deal if you have frequent, consistent transport. People think worse of time spent waiting for mass transit than time spent on transit in a 2:1 ratio (aka, every minute spent waiting is twice as bad as a minute actually riding). If transit comes every 10 minutes, you, on average, have to wait no more than 5 minutes for the next transport.
BTW, I am also a student living on a large, low-car campus. I have a bike and ride the bus a lot. Since the campus is such a popular destination (as well as going to the city from campus), the buses leave every 10 minutes or less to downtown. I am amazed by how much capacity they have, and it is almost always used (and these buses are fully sized articulated beasts).
Ah ha! Something we can agree on. When I was envisioning their massive highway, my mind's eye also envisioned separated sections. The inner lanes should be dedicated to long distance travel and have a high speed limit (maybe 70-75 mph). The outer lanes would be separated by a divider most of the distance, but there would also be large places to got to the outer lanes. I'm not sure the best way to switch traffic from one section to the other. You could just have them meet up for a while, but then you have cars merging through each other. Another option would be to have on lane occasionally go between each section (like a continuous on/off ramp between the two sections), I think this would be best. You could have them circle around each other with a short bridge, but I think this would be a bad idea because of cost and safety. The outer lanes would have a slower speed limit and would give cars plenty of time to get up to speed before merging with the (hopefully) smooth flowing traffic in the inner lanes.
There have been gentrified neighborhoods where I live (Seattle). Ideally, all areas would be mixed income. This would limit resentment and provide a more interesting area.
Yeah, that figure was too low, but I imagine the highway one was as well. Looking at the Seattle monorail page (a true inner urban transit solution, aka, it doesn't connect the suburbs to the city, it connects the city to the city), I see their costs are about 1.6 billion. Don't get me started on our light rail (although, I believe they finally worked out an agreement to send it to the airport (it was originally planned to go like half a mile short)).
This thread is winding up fairly civil, even if there was some tension in the beginning:). Sorry about that, it is just that I get worked up when all these freeway/road projects are funded with no hope of any money back (since they are free), and then people scream bloody murder when someone tries to build a mass transit/public transportation solution.
In the end, we need a mix of transport systems. Cars are not essential, but they are entrenched, so we have a long of way to go towards getting people out of the ca
How many people are in your car with you when you sit in gridlock? Cars are one of the least efficient means of transportation in terms of spaced use. The cage itself takes up lots of space and then you have to drive far apart to avoid accidents.
Cities have tried to build their way out of congestion by building to anticipated driving needs, and it doesn't work. People see all this open road and think they should drive for more activities. Building more capacity puts more people on the roads leading to congestion once again. Show me one example where a (largish) city has managed to avoid congestion by building more freeways and roads.
Mass transit promotes density and highways support sprawl, it is true. This is a fact. What is the easiest way to get to mass transit? Walk, bike, or Segway. Mass transit usually requires density, so people will use it. There are some systems that are different, though, like BART. Highways on the other hand, support only sprawl. If you lived in the city and wanted to go to another part of the city, you wouldn't take a freeway, you would take surface roads (usually) since they are much more versatile (this does not include LA, BTW). Highways are used by cars, so you take your car to the highway, allowing you to love farther from it, promoting sprawl.
Sure, the freeway has economy of scale, but does that mean you get better use out of the extra lanes? It wouldn't do as much good if you built 2.5 times the pavement for 2 times the money for 1.75 times the capacity. Adding lanes doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. People have to switch lanes (and asshat drivers do it anyway to try and get ahead (which often doesn't work)), slowing down traffic and introducing turbulence. If an offramp slows down, that doesn't mean the far left lanes are clear.
Cars were effective transportation at one point, but no longer. If you sit in gridlock every morning, that doesn't sound very effective.
Space city is limited? Then expand the city! It is much more efficient to have a larger, dense city than have an even large, sprawl suburbia. Suburbs and the single family dwellings with individual lawns are not a necessity. It would be much cheaper for everyone if density was increased.
I do agree with this sentence, "Having good transportation makes the lives of millions better, wastes less energy, and makes society more productive." Mass transit = good transportation. Cars are not energy efficient by a long shot. It is much easier to make larger vehicles that carry more people (busses, trains) more efficient than single occupant vehicles.
Also, this reminds me of what someone else on the internet said. To paraphrase, "A 300 million dollar intercity mass transit system will get booed as government waste, but the 1.6 billion dollar freeway extension further into the boonies gets paraded as a much needed expansion (even though the mass transit will bring in revenue and the freeway will only have costs). But you can't argue with 'free'."
Property value does increase, this is true. But if people living own less cars, or even no cars, because of the increased density, then they can spend that toward housing. Plus, it doesn't have be too expensive, older buildings can still provide housing for lower income people. Finally, if sprawl wasn't subsidized, taxes would go down (more money to spend on housing), and the cost of living in the suburbs would no longer seem as attractive. The city may cost more to live in, but the sprawl would cost more to travel in. Also, some utilities like heating would be cheaper, since it is much cheaper to heat/cool density versus single family buildings.
I'm sorry, but this is dumb. Most people who live in suburbs rely on the nearby cities for their jobs, entertainment, and many other things. Why shouldn't they have to pay taxes?
That said, cities are built with higher density than suburbs and require much less infrastructure per capita. It is the suburbs that require the infrastructure, which is usually subsidized by the city folk.
People won't switch jobs just like that, and it takes time for new office buildings to come. Besides, who says people have to work in a main city? If people worked in a couple of small, close-by cities and one main one, that would be better than one main city and lots of suburban sprawl. Creating toll roads and no longer subsidized infrastructure would go a long way towards increasing density and promoting city living.
Umm, would you really want to walk or ride next to a quarter mile of loud, smelly, hot cars? The least favorite part of my bike rides are when I have to cross bridges where the bike line is a few feet from the freeway.
Right now there's a semi-revolt brewing over plans to turn highways previously constructed and paid for with bond money into toll roads. (I'm all for making new highways toll roads to pay for their construction, but screw double taxation.)
Repair work costs quite a bit of money, you know. The road system is currently highly subsidized as it is. Toll roads are a good idea and I wish they would do it here in Seattle (they are actually doing an experiment with it). Toll roads move the price of sprawl to the people who use it the most. Used effectively, toll roads would discourage reckless sprawl by showing users the real cost of roads and lower taxes at the same time.
Highways don't get gridlocked because they are built to today's level, they get get gridlocked because traffic will fill up any highway that is built. Sprawl will build, more people will drive on it because it is so easy, and the road will eventually get gridlocked again. Building your way out of congestion doesn't work. This will just result in worse sprawl, more congestion (eventually, after a few years), fatter, lazier Texans, and more environmental damage. Not a good idea in my opinion.
Oh, right. Well, maybe that story taught me to not go out when the sea is low. I've been watching some videos of the tsunami hitting and it is sad that people where so oblivious. In a number of them people were out wading in the water or standing just a few meters above sea level. In some of the videos, I swear, I don't see how the people could have survived. The tsunamis are different than I thought. I was under the impression it was one huge wave, but they are much more dangerous. People can see a huge wave coming, but when the sea just keeps rising, people don't know how bad it is going to get and don't react appropriately. I'm amazed by the amount of power and force the water hit with. This truly was a terrible disaster and the videos make me appreciate it that much more.
When you said the name it struck a bell. I remember that book from when I was little. I didn't see mention of a tsunami on the Amazon page, but if that is in the book, then it is definitely the one I was thinking of. Thanks! You have been befriended.
Don't forget the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is coming to the general population in 2006. Add the fact that you can blend with biodiesel (or use 100% biodiesel) and you get pretty clean fuel. The buses where I live use ULSD, all the new ones are hybrids (so you can get energy back from breaking), and some are being tested with biodiesel.
I still think a diesel is a good investment (if you must get a car) because they can be run on biodiesel, which is way better than gas or diesel.
I thought it was because they blacklisted 90%+ of the internet.
I remember when AOL first stopped rejecting e-mails from my server. I jumped through a bunch of hoops contacting them and trying to get off the blacklist, but in the end they said I would have to contact my ISP because they have me listed as consumer IP. Great. Fortunately, I nor my family really e-mail anyone on AOL any more, so it isn't a problem. I've made my family and the one other user that use my server aware of why they can't e-mail AOL, and they accept it. They know, however, that it if they absolutely need to e-mail an AOLer, they can ask me and I'll tell my SMTP server to temporarily forward through my ISP's shitty SMTP server.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I know there have been rumors for a long time, but I was referring to the recent speculation.
Umm, I believe an NDA is usually signed, you don't just click "Okay".
The rumor sites were filled with speculation of an iPhone. I don't see where it all came from, since the announcement from Moto and Apple only said that they were developing iTunes for phones. I think a lot of people used this Forbes story as their source and went rampant with speculation.
I started getting worried when I realized they were buying everyone under the sun. This was a few years ago. Fortunately, I rarely game anymore, so I don't feel bad missing the 'hot new EA game'.
I also remember my friend poking fun at how EA games start with a really short video by the creators followed by a much longer video from EA ("EA Games... Challenge Everything). Even though EA only published some of these games, their video was much longer.
Hehe, I've noticed a few myself, and fortunately I often have a camera around when it happens. It isn't always BSoDs, though, there are often other error messages that are still funny.
A whole bunch of BSoDs on some kiosks at Key Arena. This is particularly funny, because I occasionally see one of the three most famous people from Microsoft there (Gates, Allen, and Ballmer).
Unable to load traffic data from a website on a public computer (running IE)
Error message on a display in an elevator in Vegas
Andrew
Offtopic? Whatever.
Anyway, I don't know if they still are in business. This could just be some artifacts left on the web from sites that haven't been updated referring to them. If you do a search for Godfathers in Bellevue, you get a bunch of results. However, I know for a fact that C, D, and I are all closed down. If you click on the name, you can find the websites that include that address. It seems like the websites are just out of date (mostly the SuperPages).
Andrew
I believe you are correct. I visited it a few years ago and that is what I recall them saying (that Biosphere I is earth).
Well, they could call the next version 10.5 Pussy.
Maybe they were throwing out their pizza box.
Wave of Destruction has a lot of photos on their website and large collection of BitTorrent videos.
Okay, you probably have a point. I'd like to add a few things, though. First, not only do they pay different property tax, there are also things like car registration fees and such that are separate from the city and suburbs. Also, the state might pay for the freeways, but the cities still have to maintain roads that outsides are using heavily that lead from the freeways to locations in the cities. City dwellers are less likely to use the freeway (or, use it for less distance). Ideally roads and mass transit would be tolled so you pay for what you use.
That said, city dwellers are subsidizing the freeway system more than the rural people are subsidizing mass transit and inner city transit.
The US is still very dynamic. The Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 1.2 million people over the next 20 years (a big increase for us).
Well, Venice may not be a large commercial or industrial center, but they also don't have a metro system in place (underground railway). Venice itself may not be able to scale well, but if you have a system with a fast, high-capacity rail, then it can accommodate a lot of people and move them around fast. Most US cities are not much larger than 1-3 million. The greater Seattle area is falls between that range. Also, if we need super large cities like LA, then you can link six or so of these cities together in a large loop (putting the station at the central hub of each smaller area). (I can't find the picture that illustrates this)
Huge super stores could still have a place in a car free city (well, it would be harder to transport your items home, though). If they aren't too gaudy, they could be put in with the normal buildings in the city, else just put them on the outer rim along with the heavy industry. I don't think everything is moving towards the huge super retailers, though. A lot of urban people are against Walmart and there seems to be a lot of people where I am from that prefer smaller, more local stores. I personally would rather by fresh herbs from a local store than travel a few districts over on the subway to get a pound of cilantro for $.15.
People could still have their own house and lawn in these cities, although it would become more expensive. The zoning laws wouldn't have to require multistory, multifamily buildings, but then you wouldn't have much density in those areas without.
I think there are people who would want to live in car free neighborhoods. There is a bunch of redevelopment happening in Seattle now, and one thing I think they should do is shut off a few square blocks of roads (some roads don't get much traffic at all as it is) and build a little car free community. The outside buildings would be exposed to the streets, but the inside buildings and (car free) streets would be quiet. I believe people would buy this, as there is already one apartment building in town that offers a courtyard and advertises it like an Italian villa. People like peaceful sanctuaries in cities. We wouldn't have to design cities from scratch, even thought it would be ideal. Here is a plan for putting a high coverage rail system in the city of Lyon, France. The beauty about the reference design (and remember, that is just a reference) is that each lobe would only need one set of rail tracks (one going each direction) and no matter where you were going in the city, it would require only one transfer. There are three 'central hubs' which help distributed the load around. BTW, that Paris rail system is huge! I'd love to visit there sometime (I've been to NYC which also has a nice rail system).
That is the idea, though. If we build these rail systems in urban areas (or other very efficient means of transport, although underground rail is still the most ideal), people will congregate around the stations. If you put a station in a more suburban area, it is likely that over the years more dense housing would be built around it. People would eventually want to move where transport is good, especially if it is hard to get to the station with a car (or if it is too congested for parking near the station).
I've lived in a suburb my whole life (although now I live on a university campus). I hope to move to the city this summer (well, I'm in a city now, but it is only temporary, and I am sent home over breaks) and I don't plan on returning. I didn't mind growing up in the suburbs until about halfway through high school when I got annoyed with how hard it was to visit places away from home (because I don't like driving). When I think back, though, it would be easier to live in a city and travel. I've been to Venice and it was a wonderful city, I'd love to live in a European-style, huma
The largest problem with most bus systems is that they run on the same roads as normal cars. This makes it impossible for busses to ever be faster than cars. Impossible. This is why it is absolutely necessary to have separation of transit systems. Operating on different levels is one of the best ways to ensure peace. Look at Venice, they have heavy foot traffic on the streets and the canal system. This divided system allows freight to be ferried most of the way and then carried only a short distance. This leaves the people walking around in peace. This is essential for mass transit to coexist well with roads and cars. Look at San Francisco's BART system, it runs down the middle of the freeway and is able to go very fast.
:). Sorry about that, it is just that I get worked up when all these freeway/road projects are funded with no hope of any money back (since they are free), and then people scream bloody murder when someone tries to build a mass transit/public transportation solution.
Well, I do think the population is growing. Not only are people living longer and still having kids, but there is also still a large influx of immigrants. California alone is booming because of all the incoming Latinos. High population isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying that there will always be people for sprawl (until an energy crunch or prohibitive prices prevent it).
Transfers are not that big of a deal if you have frequent, consistent transport. People think worse of time spent waiting for mass transit than time spent on transit in a 2:1 ratio (aka, every minute spent waiting is twice as bad as a minute actually riding). If transit comes every 10 minutes, you, on average, have to wait no more than 5 minutes for the next transport.
BTW, I am also a student living on a large, low-car campus. I have a bike and ride the bus a lot. Since the campus is such a popular destination (as well as going to the city from campus), the buses leave every 10 minutes or less to downtown. I am amazed by how much capacity they have, and it is almost always used (and these buses are fully sized articulated beasts).
Ah ha! Something we can agree on. When I was envisioning their massive highway, my mind's eye also envisioned separated sections. The inner lanes should be dedicated to long distance travel and have a high speed limit (maybe 70-75 mph). The outer lanes would be separated by a divider most of the distance, but there would also be large places to got to the outer lanes. I'm not sure the best way to switch traffic from one section to the other. You could just have them meet up for a while, but then you have cars merging through each other. Another option would be to have on lane occasionally go between each section (like a continuous on/off ramp between the two sections), I think this would be best. You could have them circle around each other with a short bridge, but I think this would be a bad idea because of cost and safety. The outer lanes would have a slower speed limit and would give cars plenty of time to get up to speed before merging with the (hopefully) smooth flowing traffic in the inner lanes.
There have been gentrified neighborhoods where I live (Seattle). Ideally, all areas would be mixed income. This would limit resentment and provide a more interesting area.
Yeah, that figure was too low, but I imagine the highway one was as well. Looking at the Seattle monorail page (a true inner urban transit solution, aka, it doesn't connect the suburbs to the city, it connects the city to the city), I see their costs are about 1.6 billion. Don't get me started on our light rail (although, I believe they finally worked out an agreement to send it to the airport (it was originally planned to go like half a mile short)).
This thread is winding up fairly civil, even if there was some tension in the beginning
In the end, we need a mix of transport systems. Cars are not essential, but they are entrenched, so we have a long of way to go towards getting people out of the ca
How many people are in your car with you when you sit in gridlock? Cars are one of the least efficient means of transportation in terms of spaced use. The cage itself takes up lots of space and then you have to drive far apart to avoid accidents.
Cities have tried to build their way out of congestion by building to anticipated driving needs, and it doesn't work. People see all this open road and think they should drive for more activities. Building more capacity puts more people on the roads leading to congestion once again. Show me one example where a (largish) city has managed to avoid congestion by building more freeways and roads.
Mass transit promotes density and highways support sprawl, it is true. This is a fact. What is the easiest way to get to mass transit? Walk, bike, or Segway. Mass transit usually requires density, so people will use it. There are some systems that are different, though, like BART. Highways on the other hand, support only sprawl. If you lived in the city and wanted to go to another part of the city, you wouldn't take a freeway, you would take surface roads (usually) since they are much more versatile (this does not include LA, BTW). Highways are used by cars, so you take your car to the highway, allowing you to love farther from it, promoting sprawl.
Sure, the freeway has economy of scale, but does that mean you get better use out of the extra lanes? It wouldn't do as much good if you built 2.5 times the pavement for 2 times the money for 1.75 times the capacity. Adding lanes doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. People have to switch lanes (and asshat drivers do it anyway to try and get ahead (which often doesn't work)), slowing down traffic and introducing turbulence. If an offramp slows down, that doesn't mean the far left lanes are clear.
Cars were effective transportation at one point, but no longer. If you sit in gridlock every morning, that doesn't sound very effective.
Space city is limited? Then expand the city! It is much more efficient to have a larger, dense city than have an even large, sprawl suburbia. Suburbs and the single family dwellings with individual lawns are not a necessity. It would be much cheaper for everyone if density was increased.
I do agree with this sentence, "Having good transportation makes the lives of millions better, wastes less energy, and makes society more productive." Mass transit = good transportation. Cars are not energy efficient by a long shot. It is much easier to make larger vehicles that carry more people (busses, trains) more efficient than single occupant vehicles.
Also, this reminds me of what someone else on the internet said. To paraphrase, "A 300 million dollar intercity mass transit system will get booed as government waste, but the 1.6 billion dollar freeway extension further into the boonies gets paraded as a much needed expansion (even though the mass transit will bring in revenue and the freeway will only have costs). But you can't argue with 'free'."
Andrew
Property value does increase, this is true. But if people living own less cars, or even no cars, because of the increased density, then they can spend that toward housing. Plus, it doesn't have be too expensive, older buildings can still provide housing for lower income people. Finally, if sprawl wasn't subsidized, taxes would go down (more money to spend on housing), and the cost of living in the suburbs would no longer seem as attractive. The city may cost more to live in, but the sprawl would cost more to travel in. Also, some utilities like heating would be cheaper, since it is much cheaper to heat/cool density versus single family buildings.
I'm sorry, but this is dumb. Most people who live in suburbs rely on the nearby cities for their jobs, entertainment, and many other things. Why shouldn't they have to pay taxes?
That said, cities are built with higher density than suburbs and require much less infrastructure per capita. It is the suburbs that require the infrastructure, which is usually subsidized by the city folk.
People won't switch jobs just like that, and it takes time for new office buildings to come. Besides, who says people have to work in a main city? If people worked in a couple of small, close-by cities and one main one, that would be better than one main city and lots of suburban sprawl. Creating toll roads and no longer subsidized infrastructure would go a long way towards increasing density and promoting city living.
Andrew
Umm, would you really want to walk or ride next to a quarter mile of loud, smelly, hot cars? The least favorite part of my bike rides are when I have to cross bridges where the bike line is a few feet from the freeway.
Right now there's a semi-revolt brewing over plans to turn highways previously constructed and paid for with bond money into toll roads. (I'm all for making new highways toll roads to pay for their construction, but screw double taxation.)
Repair work costs quite a bit of money, you know. The road system is currently highly subsidized as it is. Toll roads are a good idea and I wish they would do it here in Seattle (they are actually doing an experiment with it). Toll roads move the price of sprawl to the people who use it the most. Used effectively, toll roads would discourage reckless sprawl by showing users the real cost of roads and lower taxes at the same time.
Highways don't get gridlocked because they are built to today's level, they get get gridlocked because traffic will fill up any highway that is built. Sprawl will build, more people will drive on it because it is so easy, and the road will eventually get gridlocked again. Building your way out of congestion doesn't work. This will just result in worse sprawl, more congestion (eventually, after a few years), fatter, lazier Texans, and more environmental damage. Not a good idea in my opinion.
Oh, right. Well, maybe that story taught me to not go out when the sea is low. I've been watching some videos of the tsunami hitting and it is sad that people where so oblivious. In a number of them people were out wading in the water or standing just a few meters above sea level. In some of the videos, I swear, I don't see how the people could have survived. The tsunamis are different than I thought. I was under the impression it was one huge wave, but they are much more dangerous. People can see a huge wave coming, but when the sea just keeps rising, people don't know how bad it is going to get and don't react appropriately. I'm amazed by the amount of power and force the water hit with. This truly was a terrible disaster and the videos make me appreciate it that much more.
I can believe it, just look at this graph.
When you said the name it struck a bell. I remember that book from when I was little. I didn't see mention of a tsunami on the Amazon page, but if that is in the book, then it is definitely the one I was thinking of. Thanks! You have been befriended.
Andrew
Forgot to add: The buses also have particulate filters and catalytic convertors. I haven't seen smoke coming out of our buses in years.
Don't forget the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is coming to the general population in 2006. Add the fact that you can blend with biodiesel (or use 100% biodiesel) and you get pretty clean fuel. The buses where I live use ULSD, all the new ones are hybrids (so you can get energy back from breaking), and some are being tested with biodiesel.
I still think a diesel is a good investment (if you must get a car) because they can be run on biodiesel, which is way better than gas or diesel.
I thought it was because they blacklisted 90%+ of the internet.
I remember when AOL first stopped rejecting e-mails from my server. I jumped through a bunch of hoops contacting them and trying to get off the blacklist, but in the end they said I would have to contact my ISP because they have me listed as consumer IP. Great. Fortunately, I nor my family really e-mail anyone on AOL any more, so it isn't a problem. I've made my family and the one other user that use my server aware of why they can't e-mail AOL, and they accept it. They know, however, that it if they absolutely need to e-mail an AOLer, they can ask me and I'll tell my SMTP server to temporarily forward through my ISP's shitty SMTP server.