Your naïvety is touching. Impact americans? Strike terror? Remember the Anthrax? You guys were doing it in your trousers at the thought of opening mail, and the rest of the world (well, the rest of the western world) was watching and thinking "Hope we're not next". Things like that have already happened, and I genuinely believe they will happen again, in the US and elsewhere.
The anthrax attacks were almost certainly home-grown, just like the sniper attacks. Anyone with half a brain knew this at the time of the attacks. It was just a nut with a grudge who used 9/11 as a excuse.
However Americans, as a whole, are hysterical. We tend to panic from everything (Y2K, drug war, 9/11, etc.), mainly due to the extremely sensationalist media who has a greate influence in the USA than in other countries.
From a terrorist viewpoint this just makes it easy because the next time somebody with a grudge gets their hands on a bag of anthrax and starts mailing out free samples, the nation will be just as surprised as it was last time.
Except that it is unlikely to happen again as the anthrax attacks were almost certainly the result of a home-grown mad bomber type (like the Unabomber). And the people the Muslim terrorists should worry about, US intelligence, have very LONG memories and are totally ruthless.
No, they're not. It'll just put a few of the smaller operators out of business, or if push comes to shove, move them overseas. Huge amounts of spam come from overseas already. If it comes to a legal fight, those with the most money (the spammers) will win.
People said the same thing about junk faxes. I now recieve about 4 junk faxes A DAY on my cellphone, because it was found through wardialing. All of the faxes (pretty much) come from ONE company, Fax.com, who is still in business. This is because our entire criminal justice system is geared towards "street crime", so white-collar crime, like spamming, recieves very little attention.
btw is it just me but aren't there too many XBOX stories on slashdot, I mean this horse looks to be pretty dead to me.
It's not just you. It seems like every minor accouncement about XBox gets posted but little or nothing about the PS2 or GameCube.
Look at the mod articles. The PS2 has a very vibrant and successful modding community, but when was the last time you saw an article on PS2 modding? Because it's done well it isn't worth reporting?
I think you're right in believing that Microsoft will provide a better online experience than Sony with the PS2. For Microsoft, this is *IT*. If XBox Live! is a failure it means the end of XBox, and they know it, so they're working to make it as attractive as possible. I think they're doing a good job.
But it doesn't matter, Microsoft has already lost the console war. Broadband gaming, no matter how well implemented, simply isn't a big enough market for Microsoft to get an advantage over Sony. Sony still has the biggest games and the most popular franchises (FF, GTA, etc.), and their online gaming will get a big boost from Everquest. And remember that the typical online gamer is focused on a FEW games, like Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot, that they are willing to spend monthly fees on. If Sony captures a lot of people with Everquest (or possibly Galaxies), that could be all they need to garner more REVENUE that Microsoft.
There is also the simple fact that Sony completely owns Japan, and increasingly Europe (where Gamecube is doing better than XBox). Xbox can't survive with 1/6th of the market and I seriously doubt Microsoft will ever capture more than 50% of the US market.
The voice commication is marvelous. I too, was worried about swearing, yelling, etc. But it's not happening yet -- just your usual good-natured trash-talking and "good game"s all around. I have yet to mute anyone.
I use Windows at work and for my personal machines at home. Why?
At Work:
We're a Windows-based network, I'm an MIS guy, and that's that. I have to use it, and franky, in LAN environments Win2k has it's advantages as a server. On the desktop there are many Windows-only apps.
At Home:
I run Windows XP. It's pretty stable (slightly sell so than WIn2k, but I like the UI changes as it's been better since SP1), runs fairly fast on my high-end system (Athlong 1800+, 1GM Ram, etc.) but really it's the games and certain video editing software that keep me on the platform.
It's really all about the applications. I know several people who would switch if they had the apps. For example, my father needs Quicken and my systen needs Outlook. Neither have acceptable replacements on Linux or any other x86 *nix that I'm aware of.
While they could switch to using Macs, I have had bad experiences (on 0S 9.x, though I understand 10.x is better), and Macs are just too overpriced. Why get a Mac when an equivalent PC is 75% or less of the price?
You are still looking at things in economic terms. The reason armed robbery should be treated as a serious crime is that it contains the threat of deadly violence, which is sometimes carried out. That threat is itself extremely harmful.
How exactly is the threat of violence harmful?
I'M GOING TO KILL YOU MESOCYCLONE!
Have you just been harmed? If the armed robber actually injures you that's an entirely different charge (assault and/or attempted murder). The threats in robbery are harmful because they are used to COERCE the victim into handing over money, it's the COERCION that is harmful, not the threat per se.
Fraud is a big charge. Did you report them to the police? If not, why not? Fraud is a criminal offense. Thus I take these assertions with a bit of salt. Perhaps you meant that they were engaged in some shady, but legal accounting. There is a big difference.
I largely work in the computer field and so these examples are only relavent to that field:
Embezzelment. Overcharging customers for products. Charging customers for products they did not order. Lying about the capablites of products, the very definition of fraud (very, very, common). Failure to report income (tax evasion).
I did report the first three to local police, who referred me to the state attourney general's office, who ignored the complaint.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider economic crime to be more serious than violent crime!
In the big picture, sure. It's a more serious problem. Would you rather a mugger rob you at gunpoint and steal the $100 in your pocket or a crooked bank/company steal your entire life savings and your home? In our current criminal justice system the former is FAR more likely to be caught and imprisoned.
Here's an example that I was discussing just yesterday: dental fraud. That is, dentists tricking customers into getting unnecessary dental work. Not only is this extremely costly (one person I spoke to paid out almost $10,000 for unnecessary work) but potentially life threatening as some dental surgery requires general anesthisia which is always life-threatening. From talking with dentists it's my understanding that this practice is EXTREMELY common.
Now this is clearly a problem that affects everyone, and a crime has clearly been committed, but I suspect NO dentist has gone to jail over this practice and it's unlikey they will. Isn't this a problem?
In terms of money, I'd bet that if you took ALL of the money gathered from every armed robbery in California, a multiplied it by 10, it wouldn't even begin to approach the amount of money lost through just dental fraud.
I would much rather be defrauded than murdered, frankly. And the difference between "minor" violent crime and murder is often luck. Burglary turns into murder too often, even if that is not the intent (except here in Arizona where we are legally allowed to kill burglars without warning). And big corporate fraud is not very common, in spite of all the headlines. Big corporate greed has been way too much, but *it is not criminal,* and over time is self limiting (as we are seeing now).
I certainly agree that when firearms are involved the potential for injury in the crime is much greater. However I feel the crime itself is relatively trivial. For example, I would propose that armed robbery should normally get a sentence of 6 months to 2 years with a tag of an additional 5 years if a gun is involved (to represent the danger). Armed robberies not involving guns aren't a serious issue compared to fraud.
I would also agree with you about drug laws. But notice, as with other crimes, it's the lowest-level "street dealers" who are arrested and convicted (particularly those in inner-city areas) and everyone else is relatively untouched (except perhaps meth makers). I know this from experience.
However I disagree about big corporate fraud being uncommon. I have been in the position to work either in or with accounting in most of the companies I've worked for and I can assure you that EVERY ONE was commiting some sort of fraud. It's become so common that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore and just assumes that all companies are a bit crooked. Isn't this a problem?
As far as surveys, how would you design one? Go ask people if they are criminals? Ask people if they have been victimized? The latter are commonly done and are used to determine the crime rates I have referred to (along with reported crimes and apprehensions).
Both, probably. I'll admit that I haven't pursued this idea very far.
To assume that the criminal apprehension or conviction statistics are so biased as to not support these hypotheses is to presume an extremely strong and consistent bias in the justice system. It is to presume that people not in these groups are getting away with a whole lot of burglary and murder and armed robberies and assault.
I would say that there is almost certainly an extremely strong and consistent bias in the criminal justice system towards prosecuting "street crime" over white collar or other crimes. And a lot of people DO get away with, for example, assault. I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of assaults go unreported.
Almost certainly (IMHO) the most common serious crime in America is various kinds of fraud (everything from petty check fraud to defrauding shareholders out of billions), yet our prisons aren't completely filled with fraud offenders.
And again, it's possible that it only SEEMS kile there is more crime in inner-city black neighborhoods because such criminals are caught more often due to intense policing. It's entirely possible that just as much crime takes place in white suburban neighborhoods, it's just that criminals aren't caught as often. Or the crimes aren't "street crimes" and are lower priorities for enforcement.
One needs to be able to reason with far from perfect data in almost any field of analysis. But this is especially so in the social areas, as we simply do not have the means to get accurate data. Contrary to your assertion, surveys wouldn't do the trick (and I'd bet that if you dug into it, you WOULD find surveys where people have tried).
You're probably right, but I still think that such surveys would be a better tool than extremely misleading arrest statistics.
Except if we use your logic, we can never make statements like these, since you deny any ability to use criminal apprehension statistics to make inferences about either actual criminality rates or causation. Which means, of course, that we can't even reason about the subject, which means, I guess, that we should just throw up our hands and give up.
No, it means that we need sources of information other tha apprehension statistics (which are a flawed source of data, as previously noted). Surveys, conducted properly, could provide such information. I'm just not aware of any such surveys.
There is no question that using apprehension statistics to infer actual rates of criminality is imprecise. But to totally ignore it - to claim no correlation - is wrong.
It's abuse. In order to infer correlation we need accurate data, which we don't have. Everything else is just guesswork.
There are other ways to estimate crime rates. For example, there are a number of social pathologies that are closely associated with criminology, including drug use and family breakup.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Since we don't have accurate statistics, we can't truly say that these behaviors are related.
Isuggest that the association between drug use/family breakup and criminology is based on interviews with prisoners. But the whole point, is that the prison population is not necessarily reflective of the ACTUAL population of criminals. All we've shown is that people with the a background of drug use/family breakup are more likely to get CAUGHT.
There is also the fact that the majority of those that use drugs (1 in 5 Americans) and are from broken families (1 in 2 Americans) don't commit crimes. So there clearly isn't causation here.
Inner city blacks, which is where the vast disparity of crime rate occurs, also have those other disparities in large numbers.
Suburban blacks, OTOH, do not have a high crime rate (which blows your logic).
Inner city blacks are much more likely to be caught, that's it. As an example, I am CERTAIN that there are more drug dealers in suburbia, but the IC dealers are easier to find (and the police focus more effort there) so they get busted more often.
You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the real test is in practice. I can take you to the poor black portion of town here and let you out to walk the streets, or I can take you to the poor white portion. Take your pick. Your survival statistics should be a clue.
I'm white. For this reason I believe I would be subject to greater hostility in poor black neighborhoods. However, I believe I'm more likely to be a victim of crime in poor white neighborhoods. In neither type of neighborhood do I feel particularly unsafe. I live near East Palo Alto which is considered quite rough, and mostly black, and I've never had any problems.
My personal thoughts are it's the monthly charge that keeps this market from going anywhere (it's why I won't buy). But none the less, these two companies are ultimately going to merge or end up playing so nice with each other they'll be borderline illegal in their cooperation. At that point, the MPAA and big media might just encourage the government to investigate them.
There are apparently hacks for the ReplayTV 4000 series units that allow you to use the program guide without paying for the service, though I'm not too familiar with them. And you can still make manual recordings with both Tivo and ReplayTV, but it's a pain in the ass.
As other posters have said, you CAN just make a one-time payment of $250 and not have to pay the $10 a month fee. You have to decide if the $500 minimum is worth it. I'd also point out that the ReplayTV and Tvio units are user-upgradable, so you can easily stary with a 40 hour unit and then replace the HD if you want more capacity. That's what I did.
My suggestion is that you pick up the cheapest possible ReplayTV unit ($250, 40 hour unit) at Circut City or somplace else that has a 30-day return policy. Fork over the $10 for one month and try it out. If you hate it, return it and you're only out $10.
I agree. However the original poster suggested that religion spreads because of the ignorant and stupid.
You're right. Religions spread due to wishful thinking and gullibility.
I'm not suggesting that the "most likely" rational choice is any particular religion. However the assumption that all religions (including Mormonism) is irrational is itself a rather strong siren song of ideology.
No, it's not. It's common sense. Joseph Smith wa obviously lying about the "golden tablets" he was supposedly given. Most of the witnessess who claimed they saw the tablets later admitted they were lying. None of his claims about the history of the Americas have been verified. Not to mention the fact that the tablets were apparently written in 19th century American English (using period idioms, etc.), so not only were they fakes, but they were AMATUERISH fakes at that.
The Mormom faith is clearly based on outright lies.
Now admittedly, the same might be said about Christianity. We don't have nearly as much information about 1st century Galilee and the people that lived there as we do 19th century America. History has clouded all the details that might have proved the veracity of the Bible one way or the other.
The Mormons and the Scientologists don't have that luxury.
I don't see any FUD coming from Microsoft about this- that FAQ on their website does not make any false claims about the goals of Palladium. They flat out say that Palladium will enable DRM systems to be built. It is not (by any stretch of the imagination) dishonest of them to claim that Palladium will also have useful features to the user.
I'll bite. What features? In this document Microsoft goes to great lengths to imply that Palladium has little to do with DRM even thouh this is clearly not true. Signed applications and "data vaults" for personal info ALREADY exist on the Windows platfom. etc.
The only really "new" thing about Palladium is typing these to the hardware and the only real reason you would want to do that is DRM (typing personal data vaults to the PC would end up being a pain in the ass on the corporate desktop).
I'd really like to know what new benefit Palladium will provide to end users.
I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.
He's probably talking about eliminating Limited Liability corporations, which limit the financial liablity (from things like lawsuits) of investors ONLY to the money they invest in the corporation.
Eliminating LLCs is an insanely bad idea that would destroy the entire American economy.
I have heard this tripe from liberatrians a lot, never with any proof, just a flat statement that it is so. Please explain, as it makes no sense. Without regulation, what's to stop monopolies from forming? How do government regulations enable monopolies to form? During the lassaiz faire period, with no government regulation, weren't there many huge monopolies? Didn't lassaiz faire capitalism fail miserably? Now you libertarians want us to go back to it. If anyone has fallen victim to lies, sir, it is you.
The United States has never had a period of real free market capitalism. The big 19th century monopolies you're thinking of (Standard Oil, etc.) were essentially created through government intervention. The "barons" of the time simply bribed and manipulated politicians to get what they wanted. Pretty much how it works today.
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Libertarians are of the opinion that such things are better-handled through lawsuits, which do must of the heavy lifting RIGHT NOW since environmental and product safety laws are only rarely enforced anyway. This would require a slight realignment of our legal system to favor the corporations less and to favor conduct remedies in lawsuits rather than hard cash.
Look at organizations like the ACLU, which basically exist for civil rights lawsuits and are highly effective. Imagine similar organizations for product liability and the environment that can sue offenders out of existens of force them to stop the offending behavior.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
It's unlikely in a TRUE free market that such utilities would evolve into monopolies. The VAST majority of the monopolies in the USA are STATE-CREATED and not natural monopolies.
Look at Microsoft. Microsoft became a monopoly through a combination of clever marketing (legit) and using it's political influence so it could ignore laws that it's competitors had to follow (not legit). Look at the anti-trust lawsuit. If such laws actually WORKED, Microsoft would have been broken up. In the long run, the market pressure created by Linux, etc. will have a much more profound effect on MS.
Free markets aren't perfect, but they're better than the alternatives.
No Libertarian I've ever heard of has defended slavery of any kind, especially to a taxaholic government.
To corporations. Of course I'm not talking about governments. But a thousand headed hydra of unfettered corporations would be infinitely worse then a government controlled by a constitution. And that's the 'freedom' so called libertarians call for.
And why is that a BAD thing? History has long shown that you simply CANNOT have political freedom without economic freedm. People must be free to have their own businesses.
Contrary to what you seem to think, the Amercian Libertarian Party is STRONGLY opposed to the current "state-sponsored corpratism" in the US government. If the LP was so corporation-friendly, why aren't they running America (since the corporations bsically run the elections)?
It's because the LP wants a LEVEL playing field. Corporations don't want that. They want to be able to manipulate the government to get money for pork projects, crush competitors, and squash innovation. All things the LP is opposed to.
The problem for the LP is that copyright and "intelelctual propery" has been tied to the whole concept of "real" property rights, which is a sacred cow for the LP.
The problem with racial profiling is that it is selfaffirming. You think black people do more crimes? Then you pull over more black people. When you pull over more black people, you catch more black people doing crimes. So you believe even stronger that black people commit more crimes.
This is indeed a problem with racial profiling. But it neither explains the vast disparity in crimes rates between blacks and whites in the US, nor completely invalidates the idea.
Yes it does, because there is no such thing as REAL statistics that measure ACTUAL crime rates. "Crime rate" statistics are generally based on crime arrest and conviction records. The only way to figure actual crime rates would be to do surveys, and I suspect few people would be willing to admit to unsolved crimes in a phone interview.
All they "prove" is that black people are a lot more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes than white people. This COULD be because black people commit more crimes, but it could also be because of institutional racism or becasue blacks are poorer than whites (on average) and consequently can't hire lawyers to defend themselves as well as whites. Or perhaps blacks don't understand the legal system as well as whites so it's easier to railroad them. Or (insert another plausible theory here).
Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.
You're right, the big reason for a War on Iraq (and the "War on Terrorism" for that matter) is so that Bush can "wag the dog" to distract people from the failing US economy. It's been largely successful (look at the election results), both now and historically.
However the reason that Iraq was selected (and not some other nation, like North Korea or Canada) is because Iraq has lots of oil, and is an oblique threat to our oil interests in the region.
Weapons of mass destruction have always been a red herring. Saddam Hussien desperately wants such arms because it to make an invasion (which would likely dislodge him and his family from power) extremely unlikely due to MAD. Without such weapons Iraq is vulnerable to invasion by foreign powers (ex. the United States). That's why Bush wants to attack NOW, before Iraq can defend itself.
There was recently an article (I think on MSNBC) that said that online sales of music was down and the RIAA blamed illegal downloads as the reason, yet again. But the funniest part about it? They were talking about online sales of pre-packaged CDs from major outlets, and ignored sales of downloads, mp3s and from small independent outlets.
As I've pointed out many times before the record company is deliberately sabotaging any legitimate efforts to bring large volumes of music online because they are well-aware that virtually any model they could come up with (except pay-for-play, which consumers wouldn't stand for) is guarenteed to make LESS MONEY than the current CD regime.
The Big 5 don't want to lose one dollar of profit and all the solutions other than copy protection involve a major loss of revenue. Copy protection is a relatively small additional expense, that's why they're going for it.
They have a chance of sucess, if they can get most of the consumer hardware makers to play along. This is unlikely without legal coercion. Legal tactics (lawsuits, buying Congress, etc.) have historically been effective and remain relatively cheap. However, this will only remain as long as the consumer h/w makers don't spend a lot of effort fighting, and they have a powerful incentive to do so. What consumer wants to buy new, more expensive, electronics that do LESS than their predecessors? It's a hard sell. Notice how the h/w makers have embaced MP3 but have largely disregarded "secure" formats?
The RIAA shot themselves in the foot with SDMI. MP3 is now nearly as ubiquitous as CD. It is now highly unlikely any other downloadable format will take off unless they do something MAJOR to make it atractive (extremely large amounts of very cheap, high quality, downloadable content MIGHT do it).
Most SA2 discs are copyable, if you can find older firmware for your CD-Burner. My Panasonic works fine with firmware rev 1.05 or lower, not with newer firmware. Also, older firmware is not available from the manufacturer.
As far as I know, most CD readers/recorders are capable of reading "old" TOCs on audio cds. All you need is software that will let you look at all the TOCs so you can pick the one you want. I believe that the command-line CDRecord does this.
I know it's the natural evolution of war, but it also seems like the natural evolution of capitalism applied to the battlefield. He with the most money to make the best toys wins, and he who doesn't hopes for an aid package to be sent to his widow.
I'd point out that money has been a major factor in wart for a very long time, possibly forever. If nothing else, more money means you're able yo pay more soldiers. But as you allude to, the big benefit of money is that it allows you to have better equipment and training for your troops.
A good example is the Roman Empire. While it IS true that the Roman army was large, individal legions and units often defeated MUCH larger opposing forces due to superior weapons and training. And Rome was able to afford this because they established a wealthy trade empire through conquest. The more they conqured people the richer they got, which bought them more soldiers, weapons and training, which allowed them to conquer more people which made them richer, etc. It was a winning, probably unbeatable, formula. Which is why the Romans fell to internal dissent rather than outside conquest.
Basically, a hybrid car is only half a solution. If it's going to use gas, it's a little pointless -- I already own an economy car, and when I looked at the prius it's only going "save" the environment (ok, my pocket book) about another 20% - 30% (and most of that only during the city part of the drive). It's something, but in the end it's just nothing, even if everyone saved 20% the effect isn't going to be that spectacular.
It's 20% of your gasoline budget, it's 20% less smog on the road. And remember that hybrid cars won't necessarily be replacing just economy cars, they'll be replacing older gas guzzlers as well. Frankly, i think a 20% savings *IS* relavent in the big picture.
So, just a minute, you're telling me I should live an undereducated and sub-par lifestyle because my desire to become more educated in satellite receiving technology is harming the environment in a roundabout way?
Potato cannons and giant 40ft. tv towers, two of the things you mentioned, don't strike me as hallmarks of an "intelligent lifestyle". *I* live in a city and I have DSS (don't need threee dishes I have a quad lnb) and I used to have an 8ft C band dish on the roof. I'm assuming you need the 40ft mast for reception, which wouldn't even be an issue if you weren't out in the sticks.
That seems mighty unfair. I think I would ask everyone to stop buying/making/working on computers too, since these encourage factories to use all those horrible chemicals that do far more damage to the environment than my car's tailpipe, not to mention the electricity required to power today's mean machines. Everyone should be using a C64. Now there's a machine you could power with a battery.
Actually, most of the pollution in the computer industry actually takes place in other nations, like China. I'm not interested in Chinese quality of live, I'm interested in my own. And computers (for the most part) aren't poisoning my air, land, and water which is what gasoline vehicles do.
Three, I actually don't care if you enjoy time away from civilization. In fact, in contrast to you suggesting we suburbanites have "fucked up" your wal-mart free atmosphere, I would say we've improved it. Nothing like a convenient convenience store, IMHO.
Like I said, people who can't appreciate wilderness areas for what they are are part of the problem.
I don't care if you're on my "side" or not. I'm not going to change your mind. Will my few words on/. convince you to abandon the time, effort, and money you've spent towards your current lifestyle? Unlikely. The best solution is to lobby for legislative action, and eventually, lawsuits.
I bitch and blame about the pollution and traffic because there _are_ ways to easily solve these problems _and_ keep everyone happy. In fact, I bitch the most because so few people seem to understand all it takes is to properly co-ordinate a public transport system, and it'll be used. Instead I hear unhelpful whines like "Destroy the economy by selling all your suburban homes and live in Arcologies in the city", or "Don't make another road, you'll squash some frogs." Now, if frogs were in any danger of becoming rare, I might agree. But they just aren't! And that road is required to increase the efficiency of traffic, and therefore the efficiency of public transport.
If you read into what you're sating you'll realize that these issues ARE complicated. So you add a bypass road, and you manage to do it without messing up the environment too bad. Then what? INEVITABLY it will become just as clogged with traffic as the existing roads. You can't build your way of of the problem with roads, look at the Bay Area where I live. It's turned into LA. Eventually, ALL metro area will look like LA. Is that what you want?
No, people implementing poorly thought out solutions, and listening to people who would rather us all walk to work from inside some kind of inhuman arcology, is the problem, since that just isn't going to happen. People will die of smog before you can force them to be jailed up like that. [And force/jail are the right words, since few people would willingly live there.]
I would argue that your attitude it part of the problem. What is so bad about urban living (we're not talking coffins or archologies here, we're talking about an apartment) that you'd rather DIE than live there? I've done it. I live in suburbia now, but I'd rather live in the city. Everything is closer so you don't have to drive 20 minutes to get ANYWHERE (like it is in Silicon Valley). You can actually shop day to day if you want to. You can use public transportation, or god forbid, bicycles.
And what about the major urban issue, CRIME? You live in Canada where urban crime is practically non-existent. It exists in the USA, but it's greatly exaggerated.
You try to convince a township (let me repeat: TOWN, not city) to get a metropolis to drive busses into a hamlet (yes, HAMLET) to pick up one or two people a week.
Well, do you have a job (like farming) that requires a rural setting? Presumably not, since you commute to the city. The solution is simple: Move to the city. The problem is people like you who insist on living in suburbia or the fucking sticks. Or how about trains? Here in California there are plenty of trains that run out to the sticks.
This is FUCKING CANADA. It gets below FUCKING 0. My car has to start. And it has to be able to drive FUCKING 60 MINUTES without a recharge because I don't live right inside that FUCKING CITY.
Do you know off the top of your head how hybrid cars perform in cold weather? I don't, but I haven't heard any horror stories. I know the Prius has a longer range than a gas-only car.
And I'm not in Canada. The article is about California, the state in which I reside and the state that I'm talking about. I don't know enough about your local situation to comment intelligently about it. For example, I don't know if trains are feasable or desirable.
I do know that suburban-style living and the desire for suburban-style living is the root cause of many of these problems.
Note: Not everyone wants to, or can live in a big fucking city. Some of us have hobbies that prevent us living in a big fucking city. You try building potato cannons, putting up 3 DSS dishes, a 10 ft. C-Band dish, a 40 ft. TV tower and a microwave antenna and just see how fucking quick the city tells you to move.
Yup, and without all that shit life just ain't worth living is it? I used to love getting away for a week in the National Parks up in the High Sierras. Sure it was a 5 hour drive from the bay area, but it was worth it to enjoy a while outside of civilization. Now fucks like you have decided to move up there year-round, mostly fucking yuppies who can't handle the 'din' of the city so they want to fuck up the mountains with Wal-marts and strip malls.
And yes I have a bad attitude, and no, I'm not a greenie. I'm just irritated with people like you who want to blame everyone else but yourself and still bitch about the pollution and the traffic. Wake up, your lifestyle is part of the problem. If you don't want to change anything in YOUR life stop whining and suck up the smog.
Slashdot Mirror
Your naïvety is touching. Impact americans? Strike terror? Remember the Anthrax? You guys were doing it in your trousers at the thought of opening mail, and the rest of the world (well, the rest of the western world) was watching and thinking "Hope we're not next". Things like that have already happened, and I genuinely believe they will happen again, in the US and elsewhere.
The anthrax attacks were almost certainly home-grown, just like the sniper attacks. Anyone with half a brain knew this at the time of the attacks. It was just a nut with a grudge who used 9/11 as a excuse.
However Americans, as a whole, are hysterical. We tend to panic from everything (Y2K, drug war, 9/11, etc.), mainly due to the extremely sensationalist media who has a greate influence in the USA than in other countries.
From a terrorist viewpoint this just makes it easy because the next time somebody with a grudge gets their hands on a bag of anthrax and starts mailing out free samples, the nation will be just as surprised as it was last time.
Except that it is unlikely to happen again as the anthrax attacks were almost certainly the result of a home-grown mad bomber type (like the Unabomber). And the people the Muslim terrorists should worry about, US intelligence, have very LONG memories and are totally ruthless.
The laws are working.
No, they're not. It'll just put a few of the smaller operators out of business, or if push comes to shove, move them overseas. Huge amounts of spam come from overseas already. If it comes to a legal fight, those with the most money (the spammers) will win.
People said the same thing about junk faxes. I now recieve about 4 junk faxes A DAY on my cellphone, because it was found through wardialing. All of the faxes (pretty much) come from ONE company, Fax.com, who is still in business. This is because our entire criminal justice system is geared towards "street crime", so white-collar crime, like spamming, recieves very little attention.
btw is it just me but aren't there too many XBOX stories on slashdot, I mean this horse looks to be pretty dead to me.
It's not just you. It seems like every minor accouncement about XBox gets posted but little or nothing about the PS2 or GameCube.
Look at the mod articles. The PS2 has a very vibrant and successful modding community, but when was the last time you saw an article on PS2 modding? Because it's done well it isn't worth reporting?
I think you're right in believing that Microsoft will provide a better online experience than Sony with the PS2. For Microsoft, this is *IT*. If XBox Live! is a failure it means the end of XBox, and they know it, so they're working to make it as attractive as possible. I think they're doing a good job.
But it doesn't matter, Microsoft has already lost the console war. Broadband gaming, no matter how well implemented, simply isn't a big enough market for Microsoft to get an advantage over Sony. Sony still has the biggest games and the most popular franchises (FF, GTA, etc.), and their online gaming will get a big boost from Everquest. And remember that the typical online gamer is focused on a FEW games, like Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot, that they are willing to spend monthly fees on. If Sony captures a lot of people with Everquest (or possibly Galaxies), that could be all they need to garner more REVENUE that Microsoft.
There is also the simple fact that Sony completely owns Japan, and increasingly Europe (where Gamecube is doing better than XBox). Xbox can't survive with 1/6th of the market and I seriously doubt Microsoft will ever capture more than 50% of the US market.
The voice commication is marvelous. I too, was worried about swearing, yelling, etc. But it's not happening yet -- just your usual good-natured trash-talking and "good game"s all around. I have yet to mute anyone.
:-)
Don't worry. It won't last..
I use Windows at work and for my personal machines at home. Why?
At Work:
We're a Windows-based network, I'm an MIS guy, and that's that. I have to use it, and franky, in LAN environments Win2k has it's advantages as a server. On the desktop there are many Windows-only apps.
At Home:
I run Windows XP. It's pretty stable (slightly sell so than WIn2k, but I like the UI changes as it's been better since SP1), runs fairly fast on my high-end system (Athlong 1800+, 1GM Ram, etc.) but really it's the games and certain video editing software that keep me on the platform.
It's really all about the applications. I know several people who would switch if they had the apps. For example, my father needs Quicken and my systen needs Outlook. Neither have acceptable replacements on Linux or any other x86 *nix that I'm aware of.
While they could switch to using Macs, I have had bad experiences (on 0S 9.x, though I understand 10.x is better), and Macs are just too overpriced. Why get a Mac when an equivalent PC is 75% or less of the price?
So, for me, it's the apps.
You are still looking at things in economic terms. The reason armed robbery should be treated as a serious crime is that it contains the threat of deadly violence, which is sometimes carried out. That threat is itself extremely harmful.
How exactly is the threat of violence harmful?
I'M GOING TO KILL YOU MESOCYCLONE!
Have you just been harmed? If the armed robber actually injures you that's an entirely different charge (assault and/or attempted murder). The threats in robbery are harmful because they are used to COERCE the victim into handing over money, it's the COERCION that is harmful, not the threat per se.
Fraud is a big charge. Did you report them to the police? If not, why not? Fraud is a criminal offense. Thus I take these assertions with a bit of salt. Perhaps you meant that they were engaged in some shady, but legal accounting. There is a big difference.
I largely work in the computer field and so these examples are only relavent to that field:
Embezzelment.
Overcharging customers for products.
Charging customers for products they did not order.
Lying about the capablites of products, the very definition of fraud (very, very, common).
Failure to report income (tax evasion).
I did report the first three to local police, who referred me to the state attourney general's office, who ignored the complaint.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider economic crime to be more serious than violent crime!
In the big picture, sure. It's a more serious problem. Would you rather a mugger rob you at gunpoint and steal the $100 in your pocket or a crooked bank/company steal your entire life savings and your home? In our current criminal justice system the former is FAR more likely to be caught and imprisoned.
Here's an example that I was discussing just yesterday: dental fraud. That is, dentists tricking customers into getting unnecessary dental work. Not only is this extremely costly (one person I spoke to paid out almost $10,000 for unnecessary work) but potentially life threatening as some dental surgery requires general anesthisia which is always life-threatening. From talking with dentists it's my understanding that this practice is EXTREMELY common.
Now this is clearly a problem that affects everyone, and a crime has clearly been committed, but I suspect NO dentist has gone to jail over this practice and it's unlikey they will. Isn't this a problem?
In terms of money, I'd bet that if you took ALL of the money gathered from every armed robbery in California, a multiplied it by 10, it wouldn't even begin to approach the amount of money lost through just dental fraud.
I would much rather be defrauded than murdered, frankly. And the difference between "minor" violent crime and murder is often luck. Burglary turns into murder too often, even if that is not the intent (except here in Arizona where we are legally allowed to kill burglars without warning). And big corporate fraud is not very common, in spite of all the headlines. Big corporate greed has been way too much, but *it is not criminal,* and over time is self limiting (as we are seeing now).
I certainly agree that when firearms are involved the potential for injury in the crime is much greater. However I feel the crime itself is relatively trivial. For example, I would propose that armed robbery should normally get a sentence of 6 months to 2 years with a tag of an additional 5 years if a gun is involved (to represent the danger). Armed robberies not involving guns aren't a serious issue compared to fraud.
I would also agree with you about drug laws. But notice, as with other crimes, it's the lowest-level "street dealers" who are arrested and convicted (particularly those in inner-city areas) and everyone else is relatively untouched (except perhaps meth makers). I know this from experience.
However I disagree about big corporate fraud being uncommon. I have been in the position to work either in or with accounting in most of the companies I've worked for and I can assure you that EVERY ONE was commiting some sort of fraud. It's become so common that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore and just assumes that all companies are a bit crooked. Isn't this a problem?
As far as surveys, how would you design one? Go ask people if they are criminals? Ask people if they have been victimized? The latter are commonly done and are used to determine the crime rates I have referred to (along with reported crimes and apprehensions).
Both, probably. I'll admit that I haven't pursued this idea very far.
To assume that the criminal apprehension or conviction statistics are so biased as to not support these hypotheses is to presume an extremely strong and consistent bias in the justice system. It is to presume that people not in these groups are getting away with a whole lot of burglary and murder and armed robberies and assault.
I would say that there is almost certainly an extremely strong and consistent bias in the criminal justice system towards prosecuting "street crime" over white collar or other crimes. And a lot of people DO get away with, for example, assault. I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of assaults go unreported.
Almost certainly (IMHO) the most common serious crime in America is various kinds of fraud (everything from petty check fraud to defrauding shareholders out of billions), yet our prisons aren't completely filled with fraud offenders.
And again, it's possible that it only SEEMS kile there is more crime in inner-city black neighborhoods because such criminals are caught more often due to intense policing. It's entirely possible that just as much crime takes place in white suburban neighborhoods, it's just that criminals aren't caught as often. Or the crimes aren't "street crimes" and are lower priorities for enforcement.
One needs to be able to reason with far from perfect data in almost any field of analysis. But this is especially so in the social areas, as we simply do not have the means to get accurate data. Contrary to your assertion, surveys wouldn't do the trick (and I'd bet that if you dug into it, you WOULD find surveys where people have tried).
You're probably right, but I still think that such surveys would be a better tool than extremely misleading arrest statistics.
Except if we use your logic, we can never make statements like these, since you deny any ability to use criminal apprehension statistics to make inferences about either actual criminality rates or causation. Which means, of course, that we can't even reason about the subject, which means, I guess, that we should just throw up our hands and give up.
No, it means that we need sources of information other tha apprehension statistics (which are a flawed source of data, as previously noted). Surveys, conducted properly, could provide such information. I'm just not aware of any such surveys.
There is no question that using apprehension statistics to infer actual rates of criminality is imprecise. But to totally ignore it - to claim no correlation - is wrong.
It's abuse. In order to infer correlation we need accurate data, which we don't have. Everything else is just guesswork.
There are other ways to estimate crime rates. For example, there are a number of social pathologies that are closely associated with criminology, including drug use and family breakup.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Since we don't have accurate statistics, we can't truly say that these behaviors are related.
Isuggest that the association between drug use/family breakup and criminology is based on interviews with prisoners. But the whole point, is that the prison population is not necessarily reflective of the ACTUAL population of criminals. All we've shown is that people with the a background of drug use/family breakup are more likely to get CAUGHT.
There is also the fact that the majority of those that use drugs (1 in 5 Americans) and are from broken families (1 in 2 Americans) don't commit crimes. So there clearly isn't causation here.
Inner city blacks, which is where the vast disparity of crime rate occurs, also have those other disparities in large numbers.
Suburban blacks, OTOH, do not have a high crime rate (which blows your logic).
Inner city blacks are much more likely to be caught, that's it. As an example, I am CERTAIN that there are more drug dealers in suburbia, but the IC dealers are easier to find (and the police focus more effort there) so they get busted more often.
You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the real test is in practice. I can take you to the poor black portion of town here and let you out to walk the streets, or I can take you to the poor white portion. Take your pick. Your survival statistics should be a clue.
I'm white. For this reason I believe I would be subject to greater hostility in poor black neighborhoods. However, I believe I'm more likely to be a victim of crime in poor white neighborhoods. In neither type of neighborhood do I feel particularly unsafe. I live near East Palo Alto which is considered quite rough, and mostly black, and I've never had any problems.
My personal thoughts are it's the monthly charge that keeps this market from going anywhere (it's why I won't buy). But none the less, these two companies are ultimately going to merge or end up playing so nice with each other they'll be borderline illegal in their cooperation. At that point, the MPAA and big media might just encourage the government to investigate them.
There are apparently hacks for the ReplayTV 4000 series units that allow you to use the program guide without paying for the service, though I'm not too familiar with them. And you can still make manual recordings with both Tivo and ReplayTV, but it's a pain in the ass.
As other posters have said, you CAN just make a one-time payment of $250 and not have to pay the $10 a month fee. You have to decide if the $500 minimum is worth it. I'd also point out that the ReplayTV and Tvio units are user-upgradable, so you can easily stary with a 40 hour unit and then replace the HD if you want more capacity. That's what I did.
My suggestion is that you pick up the cheapest possible ReplayTV unit ($250, 40 hour unit) at Circut City or somplace else that has a 30-day return policy. Fork over the $10 for one month and try it out. If you hate it, return it and you're only out $10.
I agree. However the original poster suggested that religion spreads because of the ignorant and stupid.
You're right. Religions spread due to wishful thinking and gullibility.
I'm not suggesting that the "most likely" rational choice is any particular religion. However the assumption that all religions (including Mormonism) is irrational is itself a rather strong siren song of ideology.
No, it's not. It's common sense. Joseph Smith wa obviously lying about the "golden tablets" he was supposedly given. Most of the witnessess who claimed they saw the tablets later admitted they were lying. None of his claims about the history of the Americas have been verified. Not to mention the fact that the tablets were apparently written in 19th century American English (using period idioms, etc.), so not only were they fakes, but they were AMATUERISH fakes at that.
The Mormom faith is clearly based on outright lies.
Now admittedly, the same might be said about Christianity. We don't have nearly as much information about 1st century Galilee and the people that lived there as we do 19th century America. History has clouded all the details that might have proved the veracity of the Bible one way or the other.
The Mormons and the Scientologists don't have that luxury.
I don't see any FUD coming from Microsoft about this- that FAQ on their website does not make any false claims about the goals of Palladium. They flat out say that Palladium will enable DRM systems to be built. It is not (by any stretch of the imagination) dishonest of them to claim that Palladium will also have useful features to the user.
I'll bite. What features? In this document Microsoft goes to great lengths to imply that Palladium has little to do with DRM even thouh this is clearly not true. Signed applications and "data vaults" for personal info ALREADY exist on the Windows platfom. etc.
The only really "new" thing about Palladium is typing these to the hardware and the only real reason you would want to do that is DRM (typing personal data vaults to the PC would end up being a pain in the ass on the corporate desktop).
I'd really like to know what new benefit Palladium will provide to end users.
I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.
He's probably talking about eliminating Limited Liability corporations, which limit the financial liablity (from things like lawsuits) of investors ONLY to the money they invest in the corporation.
Eliminating LLCs is an insanely bad idea that would destroy the entire American economy.
I have heard this tripe from liberatrians a lot, never with any proof, just a flat statement that it is so. Please explain, as it makes no sense. Without regulation, what's to stop monopolies from forming? How do government regulations enable monopolies to form? During the lassaiz faire period, with no government regulation, weren't there many huge monopolies? Didn't lassaiz faire capitalism fail miserably? Now you libertarians want us to go back to it. If anyone has fallen victim to lies, sir, it is you.
The United States has never had a period of real free market capitalism. The big 19th century monopolies you're thinking of (Standard Oil, etc.) were essentially created through government intervention. The "barons" of the time simply bribed and manipulated politicians to get what they wanted. Pretty much how it works today.
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Libertarians are of the opinion that such things are better-handled through lawsuits, which do must of the heavy lifting RIGHT NOW since environmental and product safety laws are only rarely enforced anyway. This would require a slight realignment of our legal system to favor the corporations less and to favor conduct remedies in lawsuits rather than hard cash.
Look at organizations like the ACLU, which basically exist for civil rights lawsuits and are highly effective. Imagine similar organizations for product liability and the environment that can sue offenders out of existens of force them to stop the offending behavior.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
It's unlikely in a TRUE free market that such utilities would evolve into monopolies. The VAST majority of the monopolies in the USA are STATE-CREATED and not natural monopolies.
Look at Microsoft. Microsoft became a monopoly through a combination of clever marketing (legit) and using it's political influence so it could ignore laws that it's competitors had to follow (not legit). Look at the anti-trust lawsuit. If such laws actually WORKED, Microsoft would have been broken up. In the long run, the market pressure created by Linux, etc. will have a much more profound effect on MS.
Free markets aren't perfect, but they're better than the alternatives.
And why is that a BAD thing? History has long shown that you simply CANNOT have political freedom without economic freedm. People must be free to have their own businesses.
Contrary to what you seem to think, the Amercian Libertarian Party is STRONGLY opposed to the current "state-sponsored corpratism" in the US government. If the LP was so corporation-friendly, why aren't they running America (since the corporations bsically run the elections)?
It's because the LP wants a LEVEL playing field. Corporations don't want that. They want to be able to manipulate the government to get money for pork projects, crush competitors, and squash innovation. All things the LP is opposed to.
The problem for the LP is that copyright and "intelelctual propery" has been tied to the whole concept of "real" property rights, which is a sacred cow for the LP.
Yes it does, because there is no such thing as REAL statistics that measure ACTUAL crime rates. "Crime rate" statistics are generally based on crime arrest and conviction records. The only way to figure actual crime rates would be to do surveys, and I suspect few people would be willing to admit to unsolved crimes in a phone interview.
All they "prove" is that black people are a lot more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes than white people. This COULD be because black people commit more crimes, but it could also be because of institutional racism or becasue blacks are poorer than whites (on average) and consequently can't hire lawyers to defend themselves as well as whites. Or perhaps blacks don't understand the legal system as well as whites so it's easier to railroad them. Or (insert another plausible theory here).
Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.
You're right, the big reason for a War on Iraq (and the "War on Terrorism" for that matter) is so that Bush can "wag the dog" to distract people from the failing US economy. It's been largely successful (look at the election results), both now and historically.
However the reason that Iraq was selected (and not some other nation, like North Korea or Canada) is because Iraq has lots of oil, and is an oblique threat to our oil interests in the region.
Weapons of mass destruction have always been a red herring. Saddam Hussien desperately wants such arms because it to make an invasion (which would likely dislodge him and his family from power) extremely unlikely due to MAD. Without such weapons Iraq is vulnerable to invasion by foreign powers (ex. the United States). That's why Bush wants to attack NOW, before Iraq can defend itself.
There was recently an article (I think on MSNBC) that said that online sales of music was down and the RIAA blamed illegal downloads as the reason, yet again. But the funniest part about it? They were talking about online sales of pre-packaged CDs from major outlets, and ignored sales of downloads, mp3s and from small independent outlets.
As I've pointed out many times before the record company is deliberately sabotaging any legitimate efforts to bring large volumes of music online because they are well-aware that virtually any model they could come up with (except pay-for-play, which consumers wouldn't stand for) is guarenteed to make LESS MONEY than the current CD regime.
The Big 5 don't want to lose one dollar of profit and all the solutions other than copy protection involve a major loss of revenue. Copy protection is a relatively small additional expense, that's why they're going for it.
They have a chance of sucess, if they can get most of the consumer hardware makers to play along. This is unlikely without legal coercion. Legal tactics (lawsuits, buying Congress, etc.) have historically been effective and remain relatively cheap. However, this will only remain as long as the consumer h/w makers don't spend a lot of effort fighting, and they have a powerful incentive to do so. What consumer wants to buy new, more expensive, electronics that do LESS than their predecessors? It's a hard sell. Notice how the h/w makers have embaced MP3 but have largely disregarded "secure" formats?
The RIAA shot themselves in the foot with SDMI. MP3 is now nearly as ubiquitous as CD. It is now highly unlikely any other downloadable format will take off unless they do something MAJOR to make it atractive (extremely large amounts of very cheap, high quality, downloadable content MIGHT do it).
Most SA2 discs are copyable, if you can find older firmware for your CD-Burner. My Panasonic works fine with firmware rev 1.05 or lower, not with newer firmware. Also, older firmware is not available from the manufacturer.
As far as I know, most CD readers/recorders are capable of reading "old" TOCs on audio cds. All you need is software that will let you look at all the TOCs so you can pick the one you want. I believe that the command-line CDRecord does this.
I know it's the natural evolution of war, but it also seems like the natural evolution of capitalism applied to the battlefield. He with the most money to make the best toys wins, and he who doesn't hopes for an aid package to be sent to his widow.
I'd point out that money has been a major factor in wart for a very long time, possibly forever. If nothing else, more money means you're able yo pay more soldiers. But as you allude to, the big benefit of money is that it allows you to have better equipment and training for your troops.
A good example is the Roman Empire. While it IS true that the Roman army was large, individal legions and units often defeated MUCH larger opposing forces due to superior weapons and training. And Rome was able to afford this because they established a wealthy trade empire through conquest. The more they conqured people the richer they got, which bought them more soldiers, weapons and training, which allowed them to conquer more people which made them richer, etc. It was a winning, probably unbeatable, formula. Which is why the Romans fell to internal dissent rather than outside conquest.
Basically, a hybrid car is only half a solution. If it's going to use gas, it's a little pointless -- I already own an economy car, and when I looked at the prius it's only going "save" the environment (ok, my pocket book) about another 20% - 30% (and most of that only during the city part of the drive). It's something, but in the end it's just nothing, even if everyone saved 20% the effect isn't going to be that spectacular.
/. convince you to abandon the time, effort, and money you've spent towards your current lifestyle? Unlikely. The best solution is to lobby for legislative action, and eventually, lawsuits.
It's 20% of your gasoline budget, it's 20% less smog on the road. And remember that hybrid cars won't necessarily be replacing just economy cars, they'll be replacing older gas guzzlers as well. Frankly, i think a 20% savings *IS* relavent in the big picture.
So, just a minute, you're telling me I should live an undereducated and sub-par lifestyle because my desire to become more educated in satellite receiving technology is harming the environment in a roundabout way?
Potato cannons and giant 40ft. tv towers, two of the things you mentioned, don't strike me as hallmarks of an "intelligent lifestyle". *I* live in a city and I have DSS (don't need threee dishes I have a quad lnb) and I used to have an 8ft C band dish on the roof. I'm assuming you need the 40ft mast for reception, which wouldn't even be an issue if you weren't out in the sticks.
That seems mighty unfair. I think I would ask everyone to stop buying/making/working on computers too, since these encourage factories to use all those horrible chemicals that do far more damage to the environment than my car's tailpipe, not to mention the electricity required to power today's mean machines. Everyone should be using a C64. Now there's a machine you could power with a battery.
Actually, most of the pollution in the computer industry actually takes place in other nations, like China. I'm not interested in Chinese quality of live, I'm interested in my own. And computers (for the most part) aren't poisoning my air, land, and water which is what gasoline vehicles do.
Three, I actually don't care if you enjoy time away from civilization. In fact, in contrast to you suggesting we suburbanites have "fucked up" your wal-mart free atmosphere, I would say we've improved it. Nothing like a convenient convenience store, IMHO.
Like I said, people who can't appreciate wilderness areas for what they are are part of the problem.
I don't care if you're on my "side" or not. I'm not going to change your mind. Will my few words on
I bitch and blame about the pollution and traffic because there _are_ ways to easily solve these problems _and_ keep everyone happy. In fact, I bitch the most because so few people seem to understand all it takes is to properly co-ordinate a public transport system, and it'll be used. Instead I hear unhelpful whines like "Destroy the economy by selling all your suburban homes and live in Arcologies in the city", or "Don't make another road, you'll squash some frogs." Now, if frogs were in any danger of becoming rare, I might agree. But they just aren't! And that road is required to increase the efficiency of traffic, and therefore the efficiency of public transport.
If you read into what you're sating you'll realize that these issues ARE complicated. So you add a bypass road, and you manage to do it without messing up the environment too bad. Then what? INEVITABLY it will become just as clogged with traffic as the existing roads. You can't build your way of of the problem with roads, look at the Bay Area where I live. It's turned into LA. Eventually, ALL metro area will look like LA. Is that what you want?
No, people implementing poorly thought out solutions, and listening to people who would rather us all walk to work from inside some kind of inhuman arcology, is the problem, since that just isn't going to happen. People will die of smog before you can force them to be jailed up like that. [And force/jail are the right words, since few people would willingly live there.]
I would argue that your attitude it part of the problem. What is so bad about urban living (we're not talking coffins or archologies here, we're talking about an apartment) that you'd rather DIE than live there? I've done it. I live in suburbia now, but I'd rather live in the city. Everything is closer so you don't have to drive 20 minutes to get ANYWHERE (like it is in Silicon Valley). You can actually shop day to day if you want to. You can use public transportation, or god forbid, bicycles.
And what about the major urban issue, CRIME? You live in Canada where urban crime is practically non-existent. It exists in the USA, but it's greatly exaggerated.
You try to convince a township (let me repeat: TOWN, not city) to get a metropolis to drive busses into a hamlet (yes, HAMLET) to pick up one or two people a week.
Well, do you have a job (like farming) that requires a rural setting? Presumably not, since you commute to the city. The solution is simple: Move to the city. The problem is people like you who insist on living in suburbia or the fucking sticks. Or how about trains? Here in California there are plenty of trains that run out to the sticks.
This is FUCKING CANADA. It gets below FUCKING 0. My car has to start. And it has to be able to drive FUCKING 60 MINUTES without a recharge because I don't live right inside that FUCKING CITY.
Do you know off the top of your head how hybrid cars perform in cold weather? I don't, but I haven't heard any horror stories. I know the Prius has a longer range than a gas-only car.
And I'm not in Canada. The article is about California, the state in which I reside and the state that I'm talking about. I don't know enough about your local situation to comment intelligently about it. For example, I don't know if trains are feasable or desirable.
I do know that suburban-style living and the desire for suburban-style living is the root cause of many of these problems.
Note: Not everyone wants to, or can live in a big fucking city. Some of us have hobbies that prevent us living in a big fucking city. You try building potato cannons, putting up 3 DSS dishes, a 10 ft. C-Band dish, a 40 ft. TV tower and a microwave antenna and just see how fucking quick the city tells you to move.
Yup, and without all that shit life just ain't worth living is it? I used to love getting away for a week in the National Parks up in the High Sierras. Sure it was a 5 hour drive from the bay area, but it was worth it to enjoy a while outside of civilization. Now fucks like you have decided to move up there year-round, mostly fucking yuppies who can't handle the 'din' of the city so they want to fuck up the mountains with Wal-marts and strip malls.
And yes I have a bad attitude, and no, I'm not a greenie. I'm just irritated with people like you who want to blame everyone else but yourself and still bitch about the pollution and the traffic. Wake up, your lifestyle is part of the problem. If you don't want to change anything in YOUR life stop whining and suck up the smog.