What's wrong with you? I pointed out that mid-size towns had few of the problems of big cities, yet provide most of the benefits. And then you started this drivel about "raising chickens" and "bedroom communities".
You claim to live in New York and take the train to work, yet you "pass suburbs" on your way to work? Which New York train exactly passes "through suburbs"?
And on top of that, you still don't seem to realize that your train-taking, car-less urban New York lifestyle actually has a high environmental cost and footprint and is subsidized by the rest of the nation.
Well, it's obvious to you and pretty much every part of your answer is wrong. Thanks for proving again that people like you don't know what they are talking about.
(Of course, this is silly "logic", but that's what most Americans in particular tend to be thinking)
Instead, people like you tend not to think at all. In my experience, almost nobody who is such a strong defender of action on global warming can even explain what "annual global average temperature" even means and how it is measured.
Or it could simply be that lots of people compete for the same living space, driving up prices. Which has nothing to do with environmental footprint, but simple supply and demand.
I'm not talking about real estate prices, I'm talking about cost of living.
Estimates that city living is efficient are based on just direct per person energy and resource consumption, but that neglects all the indirect costs, which are huge.
The actual amount of land needed to support NYC has been estimated to be as large as the entire eastern seaboard (but distributed across the globe, of course), and the actual amount of land needed to support each New Yorker is much higher than for people living in most other places.
This can be changed with a simple new law, and Canadian conservatives have been pushing for that. Like many other nations, there are also numerous exceptions. Furthermore, AFAIK illegally obtained evidence is still admissible in Canadian courts, which is a huge loophole.
I also have to ask if you've even seen Summly? the UI isn't exactly groundbreaking and the output is often pretty useless
Yeah, so it's like most successful iPhone apps. Successful mobile apps are not about delivering utility, they are about getting people to push the "Purchase" button.
But none of those are $36million dollar talents still
You can say the same thing about Zuckerberg, the Google founders, Gates, and others: none of them had great new technology, most of them had connections. Internet startups in Silicon Valley are much more about image, coordination, and connections than about technical skill and innovation. Furthermore, they didn't just get him for the money, they got his company as well, including the developers.
but it's also more evidence that Yahoo is throwing money down the drain without any real evidence of being able to have anything to show for doing so
Perhaps. But revenue and the market will give them feedback on whether they made the right decision or not. That's the beauty of a free market. (I happen to think Yahoo is doomed no matter what.)
They are hiring the kind of talent who recognizes an opportunity, get resources to fund development, and can coordinate and manage a bunch of different developers in order to deliver a successful product. Given Yahoo's lackluster prior attempts at mobile apps, I'd say that's the talent they need. You are right that there is lots of coding talent at Yahoo, but that's not what they need.
Bigger picture, though: If you're looking at infrastructure investment and maintenance, high-density living (with mixed-use zoning) is far more cost-effective on a per-person basis.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. We aren't talking about rural living vs. megacities, we're talking about mid-size towns vs. megacities. Mid-size towns have most of the advantages of megacities without many of the problems. In fact, what is considered a mid-size town (20k-200k) today used to be considered a big city.
People claim that NYC is a very efficient place to live, but I think that's only true if you look at what New Yorkers consume directly. The high cost of living in NYC tells you that each New Yorker actually must have a huge environmental footprint, and that's not even taking into account the subsidies that flow into the city.
Moving out of cities is a pretty silly way of fixing (or just plain ignoring?) the problem cause you then stretch an already strained infastructure further out to support an ever increasing number of bedroom communities in the suburbs.
Bedroom communities? Bedroom communities for what? A mid-size town is big enough to have all the big city conveniences and jobs without the problems. People moved into big cities because such close proximity was needed for manufacturing and administration in the 19th and 20th century. There are few advantages to that anymore, but many of the disadvantages have remained the same.
I live in New York BTW.
You sound about as ignorant of the rest of the world as the typical New Yorker.
You might want to actually come to DC sometime soon. It's actually (depending on whose figures) the cleanest or second-cleanest city in the nation, and patently gorgeous
I've been to DC many times. It's a crime-infested dump, albeit with some federal guilding in places because powerful politicians don't want to see it.
And if you don't think that getting electricity to homes is a challenge, I invite you to actually learn something about transmission and distribution
The point is: it's well understood technology and not that expensive.
one mile of subterranean power line in a city that connects a home to a substation, or ten miles that are all above ground in the woods
Are you f*cking kidding me? You think a "mid-size town" is people living 10 miles out in the woods?
Oh, please, stop the whining already. Big cities like DC have always been dumps. It's what happens when you put a lot of people into a small space. If you don't like it, move out; I did.
There's no problem with infrastructure around here (a mid-size town). It's paid out of local taxes, it's reasonably up-to-date, and it has nothing to do with wars-on-anything or "corporate entities". Getting electricity, heat, water, and Internet to homes is neither rocket science nor particularly expensive.
I understand what you're trying to say, but your argument really doesn't work. Accidents and poisonings are not like disease. Parental sloppiness and ineptitude wasn't masked by childhood disease, parents really did use to teach their kids to behave responsibly earlier on.
Your reasoning about deterrence would work if you were dealing with rational people. But rational people don't aim high powered lasers at aircraft in the first place.
The fact is that what you suggest is literally impossible.
The fact is that humans have managed to survive in a dangerous world with lots of things that would kill little kids for hundreds of thousands of years. Yes, there are ways of protecting kids as a parent. It's people like you who'll bring about the idiocracy.
If your kid ingests random objects of your friend's floor, you aren't doing your duty as a parent.
We don't have a societal responsibility to ban everything that, if dropped on a friend's house's floor and consumed by unsupervised toddlers, might do them harm. If we did, magnets wouldn't be the first thing to worry about.
They didn't really buy the app, they hired the guy. The $30m is effectively a hiring bonus. That's how a lot of the big tech firms attract talent. It's not a sign of a bubble, it's an indication of how difficult it is to find good people. People don't know what it is, but somehow there's a big difference between someone who can program iOS and someone who can make a successful app, and that difference is worth it to these companies.
Minorities are more likely to get charged with crimes, arrested, and pulled over for committing the same traffic infraction as compared to whites.[1] This bias exists and is real. This is a significant portion of the story.
Young African-American males commit murders at a rate a hundred times larger than the general population. You can't explain that away with "bias"; there is something profoundly wrong with the subculture they live in.
The racism issue is slowly improving, but there are practical and non-racist reasons why the incarceration rates differ so dramatically between whites and blacks. You don't enslave a population of people for hundreds of years and then turn around, snap your fingers, and suddenly have racial, economic, financial, and social equality.
An African American youth from a poor family is no different than a white youth from a poor family. The idea that you think of people with darker skin color as a separate "population" is just racism on your part. Skin color is an irrelevant attribute. You don't become a member of a "population" or "culture" because your skin color is different.
They can keep right on going because their disinformation campaign is working perfectly.
The disinformation you should be worried about is the progressive and left-wing disinformation you are listening to. Free markets are the solution to these problems, not the cause. Big businesses don't like free markets and don't like operating in free markets, they like government regulation, government-mandated monopolies, and government subsidies and bailouts. And Obama has been even worse in these areas than his predecessors, despite claiming to run on a platform opposing big business.
Oh, please, spare us the unhelpful cliches and doom-saying. There are problems with government, but there have always been problems with government in the US. We deal with them as they come up and move on. If you think this is "fascism", you really know nothing about fascism. But, then, stupidity like yours is nothing new either among the voting public, and we have survived that and thrived despite of it for two centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with you? I pointed out that mid-size towns had few of the problems of big cities, yet provide most of the benefits. And then you started this drivel about "raising chickens" and "bedroom communities".
You claim to live in New York and take the train to work, yet you "pass suburbs" on your way to work? Which New York train exactly passes "through suburbs"?
And on top of that, you still don't seem to realize that your train-taking, car-less urban New York lifestyle actually has a high environmental cost and footprint and is subsidized by the rest of the nation.
Well, it's obvious to you and pretty much every part of your answer is wrong. Thanks for proving again that people like you don't know what they are talking about.
Instead, people like you tend not to think at all. In my experience, almost nobody who is such a strong defender of action on global warming can even explain what "annual global average temperature" even means and how it is measured.
So what if the North Pole is ice free? Ice free poles have been the normal state for our planet for most of the time that primates have been around.
I'm not talking about real estate prices, I'm talking about cost of living.
Estimates that city living is efficient are based on just direct per person energy and resource consumption, but that neglects all the indirect costs, which are huge.
The actual amount of land needed to support NYC has been estimated to be as large as the entire eastern seaboard (but distributed across the globe, of course), and the actual amount of land needed to support each New Yorker is much higher than for people living in most other places.
This can be changed with a simple new law, and Canadian conservatives have been pushing for that. Like many other nations, there are also numerous exceptions. Furthermore, AFAIK illegally obtained evidence is still admissible in Canadian courts, which is a huge loophole.
And this is different from most other Internet deals and startups... how?
Yeah, so it's like most successful iPhone apps. Successful mobile apps are not about delivering utility, they are about getting people to push the "Purchase" button.
You can say the same thing about Zuckerberg, the Google founders, Gates, and others: none of them had great new technology, most of them had connections. Internet startups in Silicon Valley are much more about image, coordination, and connections than about technical skill and innovation. Furthermore, they didn't just get him for the money, they got his company as well, including the developers.
Perhaps. But revenue and the market will give them feedback on whether they made the right decision or not. That's the beauty of a free market. (I happen to think Yahoo is doomed no matter what.)
They are hiring the kind of talent who recognizes an opportunity, get resources to fund development, and can coordinate and manage a bunch of different developers in order to deliver a successful product. Given Yahoo's lackluster prior attempts at mobile apps, I'd say that's the talent they need. You are right that there is lots of coding talent at Yahoo, but that's not what they need.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. We aren't talking about rural living vs. megacities, we're talking about mid-size towns vs. megacities. Mid-size towns have most of the advantages of megacities without many of the problems. In fact, what is considered a mid-size town (20k-200k) today used to be considered a big city.
People claim that NYC is a very efficient place to live, but I think that's only true if you look at what New Yorkers consume directly. The high cost of living in NYC tells you that each New Yorker actually must have a huge environmental footprint, and that's not even taking into account the subsidies that flow into the city.
Apparently, the only two ways of living you know are the boondocks and NYC. There is actually a wide range of options in between.
Bedroom communities? Bedroom communities for what? A mid-size town is big enough to have all the big city conveniences and jobs without the problems. People moved into big cities because such close proximity was needed for manufacturing and administration in the 19th and 20th century. There are few advantages to that anymore, but many of the disadvantages have remained the same.
You sound about as ignorant of the rest of the world as the typical New Yorker.
I've been to DC many times. It's a crime-infested dump, albeit with some federal guilding in places because powerful politicians don't want to see it.
The point is: it's well understood technology and not that expensive.
Are you f*cking kidding me? You think a "mid-size town" is people living 10 miles out in the woods?
Oh, please, stop the whining already. Big cities like DC have always been dumps. It's what happens when you put a lot of people into a small space. If you don't like it, move out; I did.
There's no problem with infrastructure around here (a mid-size town). It's paid out of local taxes, it's reasonably up-to-date, and it has nothing to do with wars-on-anything or "corporate entities". Getting electricity, heat, water, and Internet to homes is neither rocket science nor particularly expensive.
I understand what you're trying to say, but your argument really doesn't work. Accidents and poisonings are not like disease. Parental sloppiness and ineptitude wasn't masked by childhood disease, parents really did use to teach their kids to behave responsibly earlier on.
Yes, but primarily due to infectious diseases and starvation.
Believe it or not, "don't eat random stuff off the floor" was an even greater imperative for small kids pre-21st century than it is now.
Your reasoning about deterrence would work if you were dealing with rational people. But rational people don't aim high powered lasers at aircraft in the first place.
The fact is that humans have managed to survive in a dangerous world with lots of things that would kill little kids for hundreds of thousands of years. Yes, there are ways of protecting kids as a parent. It's people like you who'll bring about the idiocracy.
If your kid ingests random objects of your friend's floor, you aren't doing your duty as a parent.
We don't have a societal responsibility to ban everything that, if dropped on a friend's house's floor and consumed by unsupervised toddlers, might do them harm. If we did, magnets wouldn't be the first thing to worry about.
Gas lasers with long tubes pretty much "automagically" have a good beam when they have a beam at all; it follows from the geometry.
They didn't really buy the app, they hired the guy. The $30m is effectively a hiring bonus. That's how a lot of the big tech firms attract talent. It's not a sign of a bubble, it's an indication of how difficult it is to find good people. People don't know what it is, but somehow there's a big difference between someone who can program iOS and someone who can make a successful app, and that difference is worth it to these companies.
Young African-American males commit murders at a rate a hundred times larger than the general population. You can't explain that away with "bias"; there is something profoundly wrong with the subculture they live in.
An African American youth from a poor family is no different than a white youth from a poor family. The idea that you think of people with darker skin color as a separate "population" is just racism on your part. Skin color is an irrelevant attribute. You don't become a member of a "population" or "culture" because your skin color is different.
The disinformation you should be worried about is the progressive and left-wing disinformation you are listening to. Free markets are the solution to these problems, not the cause. Big businesses don't like free markets and don't like operating in free markets, they like government regulation, government-mandated monopolies, and government subsidies and bailouts. And Obama has been even worse in these areas than his predecessors, despite claiming to run on a platform opposing big business.
Oh, please, spare us the unhelpful cliches and doom-saying. There are problems with government, but there have always been problems with government in the US. We deal with them as they come up and move on. If you think this is "fascism", you really know nothing about fascism. But, then, stupidity like yours is nothing new either among the voting public, and we have survived that and thrived despite of it for two centuries.