... As I said before, a trans person is one who adopts (through a lot of work) a very defined hetero normative sexual identity.
I really think you are way out of line here. Of the relatively few trans people I can think of.
Burger Heineman, a transwoman, is married to a woman. There's actually another programmer I remember--and I can't for thel ife of me remember her name, or find her page via google--who ported a lot of games to Mac over the years (and worked at one of the porting companies) who transitioned quite awhile ago and also identified as a lesbian.
Hah, that's hilarious. "Curating a list of idiots who jumped at the bait." That's rich.
Do you, out of curiosity, have any connection to Brianna Wu (or anyone else directly involved in GamerGate?). I'm asking because you seem to be taking these slashdot threads really personally, and it seems a bit suspicious.
It is not strange. Every trans person assumes a very well defined *hetero* sexual identity.
That's not true at all. Caitlyn Jenner is dating a woman. She is both a transwoman and a lesbian.
More to the point, if religion claims that you are created in God's image and also proscribes a particular way to live (e.g. as a heterosexual even if you experience homosexual urges), why is it ok for you to ignore homosexual desires but embrace a desire to change your body and gender. Both are doing things that your body as constructed by God wasn't originally intended for.
It seems to me that the real problem with this is immigration. Our immigration system now--specifically lack of enforcement--encourages bringing in lots of low skill labor. The next is all IMHO, so take it cum grano salis! Big agra and big business (aka republicans) likes this because it keeps labor costs down. Democrats like this because it's importing new democrat voters, and the idea of America as welfare state to raise up the poor from around the world. Economists like immigration because all they care about is economic growth. People care about individual or per capita economic growth, economists care about aggregate growth.
Can we afford something like a basic income while at the same time allowing in hundreds of thousands of low-skill workers every year?
I prefer to take the view that the US could be like a really selective college--say a Harvard or Yale. Harvard or Yale could fill up their freshman class with absolutely anybody they wanted. All 1600 SAT scores--no problem. Asian engineers only? No problem. People with 4.0 GPAs who graduated 1st in their highschools classes and took 18 AP classes--get in line. The US could be equally selective about who we let immigrate in. I don't understand why we aren't.
In my experience most people are supportive of transsexual, just not those who are lying assholes.
note... I was outed on Slashdot a decade ago, and overall the experience was very positive. Being open about it has presented opportunities to help others reach a better understanding of who we are.
That's interesting that that's your experience. I've found it interesting that it seems like many religious conservatives don't object to trans* the way they do to homosexuality. Iran, for instance, punishes homosexuality but performs a huge number of transexual surgeries every year. Being trans is seen as being preferable to being gay.
In the US, even Rick Santorum, poster child of the (IMHO) nutbag religious conservatives, said that if Bruce Jenner said he was a woman, then she was a woman. Santorum has been infamous for his idiotic statements on homosexuality (agree or disagree on state-recognized gay marriage, Santorum is a fool).
Let me make sure I've got this right. Are you saying that skin color is the same as gender?
No. They are different. One is skin color and the other is gender.
It sounds like you're trying to imply that transgenderism isn't a real thing. You're welcome to think that if you want, but keep in mind that if you're trying to say it's not real and she isn't really a woman, all you're going to do is attract people who will defend her purely on that basis, and criticisms of her actual behavior and ethics will get pushed under the rug.
Not at all. The way I view it, identity is pretty much the most personal thing we have. It's maybe the only thing that is entirely self-contained within "me." I control how I present my identity to the outside world, and so do Brianna Wu and Rachel Dolezal--everybody does. I have no interest in judging whose identities are valid and whose aren't--they're identities! They just are.
My point, rather, is that if you build your public persona on being one thing, on your past experiences, etc., and that if you embark on a public campaign in which you talk about your childhood, past experiences, etc.--be prepared to come clean with the truth.
For the record, I had never heard the claim that Brianna Wu is a transwoman before today, and I have no idea if it's true or not. I have followed GamerGate only minimally and can't say I understand all the issues.
BUT, if it's true that Brianna is a transwoman, that is certainly not off-topic. It's the same as Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black, and to have suffered her whole life for being black, when she is white and grew up in a racially accepting family. If Dolezal wants to make herself look black and claim to be black, that's fine with me, but it stinks of hypocrisy for her to lie about her past, her experiences, and her identity while at the same time claiming to be a spokesperson for people with that identity!
Likewise, if Brianna Wu is a transwoman but also claims to speak towards a personal history of suffering gender prejudice and so forth, it doesn't exactly look kosher.
1. You are correct about suburbanization in Durham and Chapel Hill (Not in Carrboro because it is built out) As population and traffic increases, travel slows down on roads. But light rail does not slow down as passenger volumes increase. It's easy to add more cars to the train. So the more pressure there is for transportation, the bigger advantage light rail has. Light rail gets MORE economical as demand increases.
I would think Carrboro is pretty much the definition of suburban (barring the few contiguous to Franklin/Chapel Hill parts).
I hope you're right that the light rail as planned helps. God knows we need it. I, personally, cannot see any reason why I would ever ride it. Going from UNC hospital to Duke hospital is not a major need of mine. Now, open a stop on Franklin, one on 9th, something in downtown Durham, go out to the airport, etc, and now it might be useful. I'm afraid given the pace of development, we're literally limiting what is possible to be built by not acting now.
2. Development is already beginning to aggregate around the announced light rail stations, even though the system will not begin to operate until 2026. If development is randomly dispersed, centralization of transportation is difficult. But if you plan your transportation system in advance rather than just reacting to the sprawl, development will adjust to maximize use of transit.
The line, as planned, seems totally reactive to me. I say that as someone who owns a property within 1/2 mile of one proposed stop!
I frequently ride public transit in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is the largest fare free system in the US. It is used by many people but growth in usage depends on many factors. Park and Ride lots make a big difference for people who live outside of town and must drive to get even close to their destination. Sidewalks make a difference because people who live close enough to walk to a bus stop have to have a safe place to walk. The Chapel Hill buses have bike carriers on the front so that bike riders can take the bus for part of their trip.
Chapel Hill is also infamous for the number of people who commute into Chapel Hill (and even Orange County more general) from places like Durham, Mebane, even Raleigh. I don't know numbers, but I would assume--especially given the traffic on 15-501--that the vast and overwhelming majority are car drivers. One of my coworkers commutes to Durham every day from Carrboro. The trip takes around 20-25 minutes. She takes the bus sometimes, but my recollection is that it takes about 1.5 hours.
Light rail seems highly unlikely to substantially change any of the numbers.
Chapel Hill/Carrboro also has the big advantage of being a geographically compact area (though located in an ever expanding metro area), and a highly affluent population that is--compared to surrounding areas--very racially and economically homogenous. It strikes me that many areas around the country that have high rates of public transportation (and bicycling rates) meet similar criteria.
But one of the biggest factor is how easy it is to find parking. Cities use a huge amount of their space just to store cars during the day. The more expensive and hard to find parking becomes, the more people will use free public transit.
That's the balancing act. It really is purely a calculus of time and effort. I can drive to work work in 14 min (std dev ~1 min--roughly!). I can park in my driveway and immediately behind my office building. Public transportation is never going to be able to compete with that in time or convenience.
And all of this takes time. People have to adjust to the new reality of bus transportation being easier and cheaper than owning and driving a car. Over time, people will make decisions about where to live based in part on the presence of public transit. And if businesses also locate in areas served by transit, then it's easier for people to live and work on a transit line.
It seems to me that the "new reality" you're talking about is really called "urbanization" whereas in the Piedmont we have "suburbanization" with pockets of denser development surrounded by sprawl. I don't remember where I read this, but a list of the worst examples of suburban sprawl nationwide featured The Triad, The Triangle, and the Charlotte Metro area as three of the worst. Tons of awful and non-sustainable development is going in all around Chapel Hill, Durham, and the Triangle as a whole. I think it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better!
Seven! That's such a rarity now... If you don't mind my asking, how do you like it? My wife and I both came from two-child households, and we have three kids (all under the age of 6). Our parents all thought it was bizarre and that we were crazy to have three kids. I kind of want more while my wife--who admittedly has to do most of the work of creating the child!--is not so sure right now. I'm always curious to hear other people's takes.
I remember back in the mid-to-late 90s when a friend had a subscription. It seemed like bunk to me--full-color glossy pages and a kind of self-congratulatory almost outside-in look at computers and geek culture. My friend (an artist and self-avowed geek) loved the magazine, while I (a programmer) just never got the appeal. I liked the programming magazines that gave code samples!
I can't say I've seen an issue of Wired in probably 10 years, but judging from the Wired blog sites like "GeekDad" it seems to me that it's still full-on geekporn rather than a real technical magazine. I'm quite sure that my experiences 15 years ago have biased me against Wired, but are my impressions at all correct?
No, I didn't mean to contradict you at all! I just meant that the Greeks aren't just similar to Slavic peoples, they really actually are Slavic people. (I'm sure some Greek people would disagree with my assertion, though!)
I have a question for you. The few times I have been in Europe specifically for business, the businesspeople in Switzerland and Belgium who I met with spoke rather derisively of the "southern Europeans." Certainly from the comments on Slashdot today there seems to be a lot of anger and, from my perspective, prejudice (justified or not is another question) against the southern European countries. The southern European countries also seem to just be doing what they've always done.
So my question is--given this, why did banks lend so much to Greece? This seems to me as criminal as the subprime loans in the US.
I have nothing against the Greeks - I like them - they are kind, warm and similar to slavian people. But they need to learn that paying taxes is what makes you country function. They need to learn that if they are into some international community they can't lie about their finances to get a credit. And so on.
Slavian people? Are you referring to Slavs? The Greeks of today basically ARE Slavs (this is, of course, debatable), after the huge Slavic migrations during the late Byzantine and Islamic periods.
You're 100% correct, and I wrote poorly. We should belittle ISIS and their twisted beliefs.
What I was trying (again, poorly) to say was that we trivialize their beliefs at our own risk. President Obama saying pretty much "that's not true Islam" might make for a nice feel-good quote, but what's the point of the statement? Does he think ISIS is going to rethink their beliefs because a Christian from the US thinks they're interpreting the Qur'an wrong?
You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must compete with other churches of the same faith for followers and tithes).
I disagree with everything you just wrote. There is a considerable overlap between fundamental and evangelical Christianity. No part of the definition of evangelical stresses that they are "about the church" or the "financial success" of the church. I think you are conflating evangelical with Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell breed of televangelist?
It is not true that an evangelical is just a church that does not have an exclusive territory assigned...that's jut not it at all.
I don't really care to get into a pedantic argument over definitions of different Christians sects, but on quick google for "what is an evangelical" (there's of course the WIkipedia page too, with a bullet point definition, see, e.g., the rise of fundamentalism in evangelical Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Fundamentalism) comes up with plenty of pages, from the horses mouth so to speak, that talks about what it means to be evangelical.
That is complete nonsense. Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans. We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only means "to stroll at the beach".
With all due respect, "everyone you're aware of" does not constitute probably much but a tiny fraction of the diversity of religious belief in the world. Just google "Bible divinely inspired" or see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration or view a local evangelical or fundamentalist church service. Many Christians do believe that while the Bible was written by humans, it was divinely inspired and as such is the literal word of God.
This belief is even more universal in Islam, where there is much less of a history of critical or literary theory reading of the Qur'an. It's a tenet of faith that the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad one revelation at a time. There is a concept of the "Umm al-Kitab" -- the mother book -- a sort of celestial ur-book of wisdom and religious teaching that sets there floating in the ether. The Qur'an is but a portion of the umm al-kitab that God chose to reveal to Muhammad.
Care to point some out? AFAIK the new testament has not much to say about sexuality.
Sure. Most are in the Pauline epistles (that's actually why I mentioned Paul in the section of mine you quoted), but they appear directly as quotes from Jesus too. Here are just a few:
My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.
I would argue that that's true of all religions, and everybody. If you can show me an entirely internally consistent religion and a person who follows 100% of those teachings exactly, I would be shocked! Everybody emphasizes whatever part of the scripture they want and ignore other parts. Some conservative Christians glide past the "Do not judge" part and spend a lot of time focusing on sexual immorality! Some liberal Christians glide past the many parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality and spend a lot more time with the "do not judge" part! That's just religion for you. Remember, even a religion as seemingly peaceful as Buddhism had adherents who really perfected the modern concept of the suicide bomber.
Personally, I was offended when President Obama attempted to define what true Islam was, and who was a true Muslim and who was a faker. How colonialist of him to attempt to be the arbiter and definer of native religion!
There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.
I think you're partially right and partially wrong. The issue is that Islam to a very large degree overlaps with parts of the world that have maintained pre-modern tribal ties to a degree that most of us in the east and west are no longer familiar with. Thus, in Afghanistan, it's not that the fundamentalists aren't united, but that many tribal coalitions have been unified through fundamentalist Islam.
I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.
I don't. We could have a nearly infinite discussion about the history of Islam, the history of the Middle East, the rise of the West, and the economic and social morass of much of the Islamic world. We would actually probably end up agreeing about a lot of these things! Militant fundamentalism used to be a part of Christianity, but was stamped out a long time ago. Militant fundamentalism in Islam has yet to be eradicated. If you think the trappings of Caliphate, the revival of the 'Uthman dinar and other potent symbols of early Islam, and the persecution of historical enemies exist in a vacuum, I think you're very wrong.
Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? It's interesting. They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired. So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."
Same for ISIS. They are VERY grounded in history, but they are very one dimensional. Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.
So, because they said, "We're going to commit treason," before they did it makes it not treason? Sorry, but allowing unilateral opt out of government by any individual or group makes government meaningless. So, saying, "You're not the boss of me!" first doesn't alleviate the charge of treason.
I've got to say, I hate the idea that if you join the US you, it's eternal on pain of death. I'm pretty much universally for the devolution of powers and rights to smaller political entity. Just look at countries ranked on the wellness and happiness scales. People have far greater trust in government institutions in smaller countries.
I believe states should be able to secede, regardless of reason. I'm not saying the southern secession followed a good protocol in deciding when to secede, but I think you would be very surprised if you actually read some of the history of how the transition took place. Think about everything that has to switch over. The federal government was far less monstrous 150 years ago, but courthouses, judges, tax officials, military installations, etc, all had a transition to go through. Many were very straightforward. Courthouse employees came to work one day as US employees, the next as Confederates. IMO, once the secession took place, the view of the north was the treason already occurred.
Short version: treason can be a justified rebellion if the state is committing crimes, it's just treason when done to continue committing crimes.
No, completely wrong. Treason can be justified IF YOU WIN, in which case, it's no longer treason.
Why do you assume that just because I did a poor job at imitating a Southern accent that it was "ebonics?" Frankly, I was trying to use the character Huckleberry Finn's dad as a reference, and apparently mixed things up *shrug*.
That's why I was confused! Perhaps you have never actually talked to someone who has a southern accent?
And why would making fun of someone crying that one state government won't be flying the symbol of those who committed treason in defense of chattel slavery cause you to support said crybaby? I, personally, think that the retailers have gone overboard. I would love for every ignorant f*ck who thinks the South rebelled for any reason other than to maintain its "peculiar institution," and wants to support that banner of savage traitors, to wear it willingly. That way they'll have a nice, big, scarlet letter that will let everyone else know that they're somewhere between ignorant fools and bigoted scum.
You know how you hate southerners and think southern culture is reprehensible? That's why. I don't support statehouses flying confederate flags, but I sure as crap support retailers, ebay sellers, etc, selling them. I remember being disgusted when I read about how Nazi memorabilia or historical items were banned from resale in Germany--history-avoiding pansies. Well, now here we are. In fact we're worse--you can still buy Nazi gear, but mention of a confederate flag is verboten!
History is written by the victors. We know who the victors in the civil war were. By the time of the civil war war, every one of my ancestors had been in the US for at least one generation. I'm fortunate enough to have the diary one of ancestor who participated in Sherman's march to the sea (he was from Ohio). Completely harrowing stuff. On another side, another ancestor fought for the south at Gettysburg (he was from the high mountains of VA/NC area). He lost six brothers in just two days at Gettysburg and was severely wounded. Interestingly enough, not a single ancestor I have tracked down who fought for the confederacy ever owned slaves (at least that I can tell). Most of them are from the mountains, where slavery was never as big. Slavery was the raison d'etre of the civil war for elite on both sides. That's not why the commoners fight. Commoners never fight for the real reason a war is being fought (or rarely, at least), they fight because they are whipped up into some kind of group-fervor. It's clear that even today the northern/southern culture divide exists and is pretty damn pungent.
That's a bad argument. The US says they annexed Hawaii and built military bases there. Nobody stopped them. Ergo, Hawaii is part of the US.
Russia says they annexed Crimea (with a popular vote even [allegedly]) and built military bases there (technically already had military bases there). Nobody stopped them. Ergo, the Crimea is part of Russia.
Actually, the Russian claim to the Crimea goes back far longer and probably has more substance.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that Jenner is an outliner,
... As I said before, a trans person is one who adopts (through a lot of work) a very defined hetero normative sexual identity.
I really think you are way out of line here. Of the relatively few trans people I can think of.
Burger Heineman, a transwoman, is married to a woman. There's actually another programmer I remember--and I can't for thel ife of me remember her name, or find her page via google--who ported a lot of games to Mac over the years (and worked at one of the porting companies) who transitioned quite awhile ago and also identified as a lesbian.
Here's an article for you: http://mic.com/articles/74169/trans-women-can-be-lesbians-too
Hah, that's hilarious. "Curating a list of idiots who jumped at the bait." That's rich.
Do you, out of curiosity, have any connection to Brianna Wu (or anyone else directly involved in GamerGate?). I'm asking because you seem to be taking these slashdot threads really personally, and it seems a bit suspicious.
It is not strange. Every trans person assumes a very well defined *hetero* sexual identity.
That's not true at all. Caitlyn Jenner is dating a woman. She is both a transwoman and a lesbian.
More to the point, if religion claims that you are created in God's image and also proscribes a particular way to live (e.g. as a heterosexual even if you experience homosexual urges), why is it ok for you to ignore homosexual desires but embrace a desire to change your body and gender. Both are doing things that your body as constructed by God wasn't originally intended for.
Like I said, I don't get it.
It seems to me that the real problem with this is immigration. Our immigration system now--specifically lack of enforcement--encourages bringing in lots of low skill labor. The next is all IMHO, so take it cum grano salis! Big agra and big business (aka republicans) likes this because it keeps labor costs down. Democrats like this because it's importing new democrat voters, and the idea of America as welfare state to raise up the poor from around the world. Economists like immigration because all they care about is economic growth. People care about individual or per capita economic growth, economists care about aggregate growth.
Can we afford something like a basic income while at the same time allowing in hundreds of thousands of low-skill workers every year?
I prefer to take the view that the US could be like a really selective college--say a Harvard or Yale. Harvard or Yale could fill up their freshman class with absolutely anybody they wanted. All 1600 SAT scores--no problem. Asian engineers only? No problem. People with 4.0 GPAs who graduated 1st in their highschools classes and took 18 AP classes--get in line. The US could be equally selective about who we let immigrate in. I don't understand why we aren't.
In my experience most people are supportive of transsexual, just not those who are lying assholes.
note ... I was outed on Slashdot a decade ago, and overall the experience was very positive. Being open about it has presented opportunities to help others reach a better understanding of who we are.
That's interesting that that's your experience. I've found it interesting that it seems like many religious conservatives don't object to trans* the way they do to homosexuality. Iran, for instance, punishes homosexuality but performs a huge number of transexual surgeries every year. Being trans is seen as being preferable to being gay.
In the US, even Rick Santorum, poster child of the (IMHO) nutbag religious conservatives, said that if Bruce Jenner said he was a woman, then she was a woman. Santorum has been infamous for his idiotic statements on homosexuality (agree or disagree on state-recognized gay marriage, Santorum is a fool).
Strange world we live in.
Or Burger Heineman, an excellent programmer and person who has accomplished a shitload in the gaming industry.
Let me make sure I've got this right. Are you saying that skin color is the same as gender?
No. They are different. One is skin color and the other is gender.
It sounds like you're trying to imply that transgenderism isn't a real thing. You're welcome to think that if you want, but keep in mind that if you're trying to say it's not real and she isn't really a woman, all you're going to do is attract people who will defend her purely on that basis, and criticisms of her actual behavior and ethics will get pushed under the rug.
Not at all. The way I view it, identity is pretty much the most personal thing we have. It's maybe the only thing that is entirely self-contained within "me." I control how I present my identity to the outside world, and so do Brianna Wu and Rachel Dolezal--everybody does. I have no interest in judging whose identities are valid and whose aren't--they're identities! They just are.
My point, rather, is that if you build your public persona on being one thing, on your past experiences, etc., and that if you embark on a public campaign in which you talk about your childhood, past experiences, etc.--be prepared to come clean with the truth.
For the record, I had never heard the claim that Brianna Wu is a transwoman before today, and I have no idea if it's true or not. I have followed GamerGate only minimally and can't say I understand all the issues.
BUT, if it's true that Brianna is a transwoman, that is certainly not off-topic. It's the same as Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black, and to have suffered her whole life for being black, when she is white and grew up in a racially accepting family. If Dolezal wants to make herself look black and claim to be black, that's fine with me, but it stinks of hypocrisy for her to lie about her past, her experiences, and her identity while at the same time claiming to be a spokesperson for people with that identity!
Likewise, if Brianna Wu is a transwoman but also claims to speak towards a personal history of suffering gender prejudice and so forth, it doesn't exactly look kosher.
1. You are correct about suburbanization in Durham and Chapel Hill (Not in Carrboro because it is built out)
As population and traffic increases, travel slows down on roads. But light rail does not slow down as passenger volumes increase. It's easy to add more cars to the train. So the more pressure there is for transportation, the bigger advantage light rail has. Light rail gets MORE economical as demand increases.
I would think Carrboro is pretty much the definition of suburban (barring the few contiguous to Franklin/Chapel Hill parts).
I hope you're right that the light rail as planned helps. God knows we need it. I, personally, cannot see any reason why I would ever ride it. Going from UNC hospital to Duke hospital is not a major need of mine. Now, open a stop on Franklin, one on 9th, something in downtown Durham, go out to the airport, etc, and now it might be useful. I'm afraid given the pace of development, we're literally limiting what is possible to be built by not acting now.
2. Development is already beginning to aggregate around the announced light rail stations, even though the system will not begin to operate until 2026. If development is randomly dispersed, centralization of transportation is difficult. But if you plan your transportation system in advance rather than just reacting to the sprawl, development will adjust to maximize use of transit.
The line, as planned, seems totally reactive to me. I say that as someone who owns a property within 1/2 mile of one proposed stop!
I frequently ride public transit in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is the largest fare free system in the US. It is used by many people but growth in usage depends on many factors. Park and Ride lots make a big difference for people who live outside of town and must drive to get even close to their destination. Sidewalks make a difference because people who live close enough to walk to a bus stop have to have a safe place to walk. The Chapel Hill buses have bike carriers on the front so that bike riders can take the bus for part of their trip.
Chapel Hill is also infamous for the number of people who commute into Chapel Hill (and even Orange County more general) from places like Durham, Mebane, even Raleigh. I don't know numbers, but I would assume--especially given the traffic on 15-501--that the vast and overwhelming majority are car drivers. One of my coworkers commutes to Durham every day from Carrboro. The trip takes around 20-25 minutes. She takes the bus sometimes, but my recollection is that it takes about 1.5 hours.
Light rail seems highly unlikely to substantially change any of the numbers.
Chapel Hill/Carrboro also has the big advantage of being a geographically compact area (though located in an ever expanding metro area), and a highly affluent population that is--compared to surrounding areas--very racially and economically homogenous. It strikes me that many areas around the country that have high rates of public transportation (and bicycling rates) meet similar criteria.
But one of the biggest factor is how easy it is to find parking. Cities use a huge amount of their space just to store cars during the day. The more expensive and hard to find parking becomes, the more people will use free public transit.
That's the balancing act. It really is purely a calculus of time and effort. I can drive to work work in 14 min (std dev ~1 min--roughly!). I can park in my driveway and immediately behind my office building. Public transportation is never going to be able to compete with that in time or convenience.
And all of this takes time. People have to adjust to the new reality of bus transportation being easier and cheaper than owning and driving a car. Over time, people will make decisions about where to live based in part on the presence of public transit. And if businesses also locate in areas served by transit, then it's easier for people to live and work on a transit line.
It seems to me that the "new reality" you're talking about is really called "urbanization" whereas in the Piedmont we have "suburbanization" with pockets of denser development surrounded by sprawl. I don't remember where I read this, but a list of the worst examples of suburban sprawl nationwide featured The Triad, The Triangle, and the Charlotte Metro area as three of the worst. Tons of awful and non-sustainable development is going in all around Chapel Hill, Durham, and the Triangle as a whole. I think it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better!
What's MRA?
Citation needed? Are you talking wonderbread or wholewheat sprouted grain bread?
Seven! That's such a rarity now... If you don't mind my asking, how do you like it? My wife and I both came from two-child households, and we have three kids (all under the age of 6). Our parents all thought it was bizarre and that we were crazy to have three kids. I kind of want more while my wife--who admittedly has to do most of the work of creating the child!--is not so sure right now. I'm always curious to hear other people's takes.
Am I the only person here who doesn't like Wired?
I remember back in the mid-to-late 90s when a friend had a subscription. It seemed like bunk to me--full-color glossy pages and a kind of self-congratulatory almost outside-in look at computers and geek culture. My friend (an artist and self-avowed geek) loved the magazine, while I (a programmer) just never got the appeal. I liked the programming magazines that gave code samples!
I can't say I've seen an issue of Wired in probably 10 years, but judging from the Wired blog sites like "GeekDad" it seems to me that it's still full-on geekporn rather than a real technical magazine. I'm quite sure that my experiences 15 years ago have biased me against Wired, but are my impressions at all correct?
No, I didn't mean to contradict you at all! I just meant that the Greeks aren't just similar to Slavic peoples, they really actually are Slavic people. (I'm sure some Greek people would disagree with my assertion, though!)
I have a question for you. The few times I have been in Europe specifically for business, the businesspeople in Switzerland and Belgium who I met with spoke rather derisively of the "southern Europeans." Certainly from the comments on Slashdot today there seems to be a lot of anger and, from my perspective, prejudice (justified or not is another question) against the southern European countries. The southern European countries also seem to just be doing what they've always done.
So my question is--given this, why did banks lend so much to Greece? This seems to me as criminal as the subprime loans in the US.
I have nothing against the Greeks - I like them - they are kind, warm and similar to slavian people. But they need to learn that paying taxes is what makes you country function. They need to learn that if they are into some international community they can't lie about their finances to get a credit. And so on.
Slavian people? Are you referring to Slavs? The Greeks of today basically ARE Slavs (this is, of course, debatable), after the huge Slavic migrations during the late Byzantine and Islamic periods.
You're 100% correct, and I wrote poorly. We should belittle ISIS and their twisted beliefs.
What I was trying (again, poorly) to say was that we trivialize their beliefs at our own risk. President Obama saying pretty much "that's not true Islam" might make for a nice feel-good quote, but what's the point of the statement? Does he think ISIS is going to rethink their beliefs because a Christian from the US thinks they're interpreting the Qur'an wrong?
You might try learning the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing of what you said is a good generalization of evangelicals, which is why the fundamentalists don't like them much. Evangelicals are about the church (and especially the financial success of it), while fundies are often as you describe. It's fun to remind fundies that they are also, technically, evangelicals (an evangelical church is simply one that does not have an exclusive territory assigned, but must compete with other churches of the same faith for followers and tithes).
I disagree with everything you just wrote. There is a considerable overlap between fundamental and evangelical Christianity. No part of the definition of evangelical stresses that they are "about the church" or the "financial success" of the church. I think you are conflating evangelical with Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell breed of televangelist?
It is not true that an evangelical is just a church that does not have an exclusive territory assigned...that's jut not it at all.
I don't really care to get into a pedantic argument over definitions of different Christians sects, but on quick google for "what is an evangelical" (there's of course the WIkipedia page too, with a bullet point definition, see, e.g., the rise of fundamentalism in evangelical Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Fundamentalism) comes up with plenty of pages, from the horses mouth so to speak, that talks about what it means to be evangelical.
That is complete nonsense.
Everyone I'm aware about doing bible interpretations is fully aware about the fact that the bible was written by humans.
We all know Jesus was not "walking on water" as the amaraic phrase only means "to stroll at the beach".
With all due respect, "everyone you're aware of" does not constitute probably much but a tiny fraction of the diversity of religious belief in the world. Just google "Bible divinely inspired" or see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration or view a local evangelical or fundamentalist church service. Many Christians do believe that while the Bible was written by humans, it was divinely inspired and as such is the literal word of God.
This belief is even more universal in Islam, where there is much less of a history of critical or literary theory reading of the Qur'an. It's a tenet of faith that the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad one revelation at a time. There is a concept of the "Umm al-Kitab" -- the mother book -- a sort of celestial ur-book of wisdom and religious teaching that sets there floating in the ether. The Qur'an is but a portion of the umm al-kitab that God chose to reveal to Muhammad.
Care to point some out? AFAIK the new testament has not much to say about sexuality.
Sure. Most are in the Pauline epistles (that's actually why I mentioned Paul in the section of mine you quoted), but they appear directly as quotes from Jesus too. Here are just a few:
Jesus:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:27-28 -- Looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:31-32 -- Divorce is as bad as adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32). (You can also get out of these two that adultery is bad)
Paul:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-corinthians/passage/?q=1-corinthians+5:1-5 -- Sexual immorality is a big deal. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/passage/?q=romans+1:26-32 -- More on sexual immorality. Those practice such things (one of such things being ... well, read it and see!) are "deserving of death." (Romans 1:26-32)
You can find probably dozens more.
My understanding of ISIS (mostly from a Muslim Arab coworker, so of course my "expert" could be wrong) is that they're "religious" in the same way Scientology is: they have all the trappings of religion, but it's all quite contrived. They emphasize whatever parts of scripture helps their goals and ignore the rest in a very obvious and transparent way that fools almost no one. It's not that they're murdering "moderate Muslims" per se, they're simply murdering anyone who speaks up about how evil they are, or simply speaks against them, whether on religious grounds or any other grounds.
I would argue that that's true of all religions, and everybody. If you can show me an entirely internally consistent religion and a person who follows 100% of those teachings exactly, I would be shocked! Everybody emphasizes whatever part of the scripture they want and ignore other parts. Some conservative Christians glide past the "Do not judge" part and spend a lot of time focusing on sexual immorality! Some liberal Christians glide past the many parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality and spend a lot more time with the "do not judge" part! That's just religion for you. Remember, even a religion as seemingly peaceful as Buddhism had adherents who really perfected the modern concept of the suicide bomber.
Personally, I was offended when President Obama attempted to define what true Islam was, and who was a true Muslim and who was a faker. How colonialist of him to attempt to be the arbiter and definer of native religion!
There are many other places in the world where IMO the problem really is religious fundamentalism, but those guys aren't raising armies and conquering vast territory. Even in Afghanistan it's just one tribe after another, not a united fundamentalist army.
I think you're partially right and partially wrong. The issue is that Islam to a very large degree overlaps with parts of the world that have maintained pre-modern tribal ties to a degree that most of us in the east and west are no longer familiar with. Thus, in Afghanistan, it's not that the fundamentalists aren't united, but that many tribal coalitions have been unified through fundamentalist Islam.
I think it's a mistake to confuse the problem with fundamentalist Islam in other parts of the world and other cultures with ISIS and the Arabian Peninsula.
I don't. We could have a nearly infinite discussion about the history of Islam, the history of the Middle East, the rise of the West, and the economic and social morass of much of the Islamic world. We would actually probably end up agreeing about a lot of these things! Militant fundamentalism used to be a part of Christianity, but was stamped out a long time ago. Militant fundamentalism in Islam has yet to be eradicated. If you think the trappings of Caliphate, the revival of the 'Uthman dinar and other potent symbols of early Islam, and the persecution of historical enemies exist in a vacuum, I think you're very wrong.
Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? It's interesting. They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired. So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."
Same for ISIS. They are VERY grounded in history, but they are very one dimensional. Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.
So, because they said, "We're going to commit treason," before they did it makes it not treason? Sorry, but allowing unilateral opt out of government by any individual or group makes government meaningless. So, saying, "You're not the boss of me!" first doesn't alleviate the charge of treason.
I've got to say, I hate the idea that if you join the US you, it's eternal on pain of death. I'm pretty much universally for the devolution of powers and rights to smaller political entity. Just look at countries ranked on the wellness and happiness scales. People have far greater trust in government institutions in smaller countries.
I believe states should be able to secede, regardless of reason. I'm not saying the southern secession followed a good protocol in deciding when to secede, but I think you would be very surprised if you actually read some of the history of how the transition took place. Think about everything that has to switch over. The federal government was far less monstrous 150 years ago, but courthouses, judges, tax officials, military installations, etc, all had a transition to go through. Many were very straightforward. Courthouse employees came to work one day as US employees, the next as Confederates. IMO, once the secession took place, the view of the north was the treason already occurred.
Short version: treason can be a justified rebellion if the state is committing crimes, it's just treason when done to continue committing crimes.
No, completely wrong. Treason can be justified IF YOU WIN, in which case, it's no longer treason.
Why do you assume that just because I did a poor job at imitating a Southern accent that it was "ebonics?" Frankly, I was trying to use the character Huckleberry Finn's dad as a reference, and apparently mixed things up *shrug*.
That's why I was confused! Perhaps you have never actually talked to someone who has a southern accent?
And why would making fun of someone crying that one state government won't be flying the symbol of those who committed treason in defense of chattel slavery cause you to support said crybaby? I, personally, think that the retailers have gone overboard. I would love for every ignorant f*ck who thinks the South rebelled for any reason other than to maintain its "peculiar institution," and wants to support that banner of savage traitors, to wear it willingly. That way they'll have a nice, big, scarlet letter that will let everyone else know that they're somewhere between ignorant fools and bigoted scum.
You know how you hate southerners and think southern culture is reprehensible? That's why. I don't support statehouses flying confederate flags, but I sure as crap support retailers, ebay sellers, etc, selling them. I remember being disgusted when I read about how Nazi memorabilia or historical items were banned from resale in Germany--history-avoiding pansies. Well, now here we are. In fact we're worse--you can still buy Nazi gear, but mention of a confederate flag is verboten!
History is written by the victors. We know who the victors in the civil war were. By the time of the civil war war, every one of my ancestors had been in the US for at least one generation. I'm fortunate enough to have the diary one of ancestor who participated in Sherman's march to the sea (he was from Ohio). Completely harrowing stuff. On another side, another ancestor fought for the south at Gettysburg (he was from the high mountains of VA/NC area). He lost six brothers in just two days at Gettysburg and was severely wounded. Interestingly enough, not a single ancestor I have tracked down who fought for the confederacy ever owned slaves (at least that I can tell). Most of them are from the mountains, where slavery was never as big. Slavery was the raison d'etre of the civil war for elite on both sides. That's not why the commoners fight. Commoners never fight for the real reason a war is being fought (or rarely, at least), they fight because they are whipped up into some kind of group-fervor. It's clear that even today the northern/southern culture divide exists and is pretty damn pungent.
That's a bad argument. The US says they annexed Hawaii and built military bases there. Nobody stopped them. Ergo, Hawaii is part of the US.
Russia says they annexed Crimea (with a popular vote even [allegedly]) and built military bases there (technically already had military bases there). Nobody stopped them. Ergo, the Crimea is part of Russia.
Actually, the Russian claim to the Crimea goes back far longer and probably has more substance.
Trees? That's nothing. In Chicago they bulldoze entire airfields at night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field
If you want an omelette...