In any event, it's not as if the whole world will plunge back into the stone age if we decide to minimize multi-tasking. If the modern world (that we made) doesn't offer large slabs of time to concentrate, then we should change it. It's not like the office is a force of nature that's bigger than all of us.
No it's not easy to change it. No more than it's easy to achieve world peace or eliminate poverty. In each case actions of a lot of people with competing interests have to align and they have to agree to change things. You can only go so far deciding that you want to minimize your own multitasking.
You really don't *have* to respond to each e-mail as it comes in, and you really don't have to have your phone on or your instant messaging client open all of the time. ...unless of course that's exactly what's required in your job and if you don't do so you're reprimanded for it.
If you're worrying/stressing about something it is no surprise it will help age you. If you worry about 70 things instead of 7, it's no surprise it'll stress and age you faster. I'd say modern life is what's doing that.
If you're multitasking there's also an overhead for switching tasks. Some of your thought is occupied by the mental juggling act. This is also no surprise.
However what's the alternative? Modern life doesn't give you large slabs of time where you get to concentrate on one thing. If something comes up at work or at home while we're in the middle of something else that's important, what do you do? Multitasking isn't something our brains weren't built for. If we couldn't multitask we'd be very easy prey - just distract us and have us for lunch.
"Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Both statements ignore their own audience.
In your case you'd replace broken software with cheaper (free) broken software that includes certain rights/freedoms the other didn't have but which most users won't directly benefit from (I love my mother but I know she'll never recompile a thing in her life). You just don't care about the things that proprietary systems provide which Linux doesn't have. Others will.
In your friend's case all he wants out of his music is that it's "bouncy pop" but you care about subtle nuances that aren't the same in his alternative music. That's no different to the OS situation - it all depends on what you want out of the the object (music or software).
If you're smart you should be using this as an opportunity to re-assess what you've been telling people about software rather than claim music/art is somehow special. Software can be viewed as a form of art too if you want to push boundaries and definitions. One man's commodity is another man's sacred art.
Heck I've even listened to some blokes ramble on about women being a commodity and then wonder why their view of women is so warped and they can't find someone they're happy with. For a commodity to be a commodity the differences and subtleties have to be ignored. If you're not willing to do that - if the details matter to you - you're no longer talking about a commodity.
It's true that most people will only work for money and I don't blame them. As you said they have lives to lead.
However there's an awful lot of long term volunteer work that goes on, and while you could argue recognition is a motivation, often the recognition is meagre. For example I belong to a model builders society which operates a large club for a wide variety of remote control vehicles. I'm involved with the model aircraft and the gentleman who's been the representative for that section of the club and given up countless Friday evenings in meetings etc has only just left the job after being outsted - he was in it for 20 years and should have quit long ago. Mostly for every bit of prestige he got he got 20 of grief. He was well known but only locally within the club.
There are also long standing organisations that don't pay or pay poorly. Even when volunteers don't stay a rolling group of volunteers keeps them going. Classic examples are charities but you can argue religions are a special case. However how about volunteer fire service or red cross etc. (Yes they either have or are complimented by paid for work, but they are long term and the do "work" long term).
TV shows like American Idol reveal the fact that a substantial number of people can sing really, really well.
Sorry but you lost me right there. American Idiot (and all the new international variants thereof) prove the people who think they can sing should mostly stick to karaoke bars.
Maybe he's trying to get attention and distribution for his code;-) Attempting to revoke the GPL almost guarantees someone will put a torrent on TPB immediately:-)
My point is that there's a reason that the alternatives cost more. Funny that you're happy to excuse and forgive the behaviour of the oil industry resisting finding a solution but want to push the burdens of change onto those who are in most financial need. You don't even see the irony in then saying we have to work with what we've go, do you?
I'm quite tired of arguing with you, since all you ever do is contradict yourself. If I don't go into detail, you criticise for that. When I prove a point against you, you either ignore it or go off on some new tagent or come up with a whole other argument that's easily shot down, or challenge me to find solutions for problems when your solutions won't fix the problem in the first place. Since as far as I know you have no power or will to actually institute your ridiculous reforms, the energy trying to convince you of anything is simply waste. You seem to think you have the answer to the world's problems and that those answers mostly involve pain for other people. You're wrong and your ideas would lead to poverty, not to mention social, technology and even economic decline, but trying to make you see that is like trying to teach a blind man to play baseball. I guess responding is pointless and that the only way to end this argument is to let you have the last word. Have fun with your dillusions. Feel free to hurl abuse, be conceited, pat yourself on the back or whatever else gets you off. Since you've proven that you can troll just enough to goad me into a response my solution is to not read any more of your drivel. I sincerely hope that either you're just trolling for sport, or you never have to make decisions on behalf of others.
Serious, that's the best you can counter? Learn how to have an honest argument.
Which form would that be? It is not responsible to plan based on faith.
The planet's being hit by more sunlight than we know what to do with. Storing some of it may help with the greenhouse problem.
The planet's covered with water. All that's required is to separate the hydrogen and oxygen using some other renewable energy source (see above) and we have pollutant free emissions at the least.
That's just one of many technologies out there. I'm not planing based on faith, I'm planning based on science.
Meanwhile it's people like you who worship economics that are the reason we're stuck with this oil addiction. Whwn you have a lucrative scarce resource is it any wonder that oil companies want to maintain their monopoly?
Well, on Easter Island they used giant canoes until they chopped down all of their trees. History is full of examples of cultures that exhausted all of their natural resources and then went into decline.
No. History is full of civilizations that went into decline for a wide variety of reasons and beause at the heart of it any culture isn't sustainable forever. Cultures and civilizations evolve till they can't anymore and die off. That doesn't prove your point at all.
You'll note that the deforestation of Easter Island had more to do with erecting giant statues than with building Canoes (see the Wikipedia article) so it was never a case of constructing too many canoes. Once again you're misrepresenting the truth. You'll notice their society suffered and eventually the civilization collapsed arund about the time their transport died off - yet another argument that transport is essential to a culture's prosperity. If anything it argues against your approach of pricing people out of their transportation.
funny, it's working right now. You're confusing unworkable with unsustainable.
you haven't offered up any suggestions as to how to get us out of this mess other than some hand waving and repeating the mantra about improving regional rail.
Hand waving? Buddy all you've suggested is that pricing people out of their cars and forcing them onto already saturated cattle like public transport is the way to go. You've said people need to live nearer where they work, but haven't explained what a family is suppose to do if family members have jobs that are geographically diverse. You've said that if people can't go to work, no matter others will fill their shoes. You're the one doing the hand waving. One reason our society is so diverse and we have some degree of freedom is that people can sell their abilities to a wide geographic area, but you just want to concentrate people in the cities, and make them walk to work as if our society could sustain that.
I've suggested improved public transport infrastructure 9not just regional rail. (I've mentioned buses too have I not? I've suggested more regional hubs but not one in every cul de sac which was your absurd accusation). I've suggested improved roads instead of tollways (trolls under bridges is no way to run a transport infrastructure). I've now suggested use of alternate renewable fuels. In any case if you offer a solution and I say it's unworkable that doesn't mean I have to provide an alternative for my assessment to be correct. You're proposing drastic changes that would impose extreme hardships on some people so the onus is on YOU to prove that it makes things better. You haven't done so.
You've conducted this entire discussion childishly and dishonestly, misrepresenting both my ideas and yours every step of the way. Your logic has been flawed and every time I prove a point you try to squirm around it (eg. "my policies don't create ghettos I just want to pressure people into the city" when that's the very definition of how a ghetto is created). You're happy to use straw men and riductio ad absurdum to push your unsustainable nonsense. You can't let it go and you can't provide anything solid that will back up your own point of view so you have to attack mine even if the only way is to warp some of what I've said and deny the rest.
I am trying to make our lifestyle more sustainable, so that our children can live like we do (or better).
Perhaps, but what you'd end up actually doing is making journey times much longer, less comfortable, and getting to work more expensive (for some too expensive to make going to work viable). In short you'd be bringing down the standard of living any way you measure it.
The suburban lifestyle is not sustainable - it relies on cheap fuel, which is about to go away.
Cheap PETROL will go away. As it gets scarcer, it'll get more expensive and Petrol companies will hold on to their industry and fight tooth and nail to keep it. Once it's so scarce that most can't afford to buy it, there will be no need to hold onto it because it won't be profitable.
Cheap fuel will re-emerge in some other form. If we don't want to kill this planet I hope that eventually we'll move towards hydrogen and solve the safety, storage and transportation problems. While there are other renewable fuels no other fuel has nothing but water as a bi-product. If you honestly believe human beings are going to give up on mechanical transport you haven't paid attention to history for the last few thousand years. Name one civilization that's developed faster transport then abandoned it.
I'm not proposing any sort of forced march here, simply suggesting that the subsidies are re-arranged so that they encourage people to live in an urban setting instead of a suburban one....
Ghettos are formed in three ways:...
When the majority is willing and able to pay more than the minority to live with its own kind...
Any of those definitions is fine. I'm trying to eliminate them.
Clearly the above isn't logically consistent. Try harder.
You may or may not mean well (I tend to doubt that you care about people based on what you said earlier) Regardless your ideas are unworkable.
I come up with this stuff when you refer to crowded trains as being acceptable.
As for cars in the suburbs yes, at a certain density public transport becomes LESS efficient than public. At that point congestion isn't an issue, and neither is pollution so cars are the BEST form of transport. No you don't need to connect every point to every point. Buses don't need to go down every cul-de-sac. You can build hubs. Reductio-ad-absurdum and straw men are terrible ways to try to win an argument. You've given up and resorted to putting ridiculous words in the other person's mouth then shooting them down instead.
I come up with this stuff when you refer to crowded trains that treat people as cattle as not being acceptable, but some of the best in the world.
As for cars in the suburbs yes, at a certain density public transport becomes LESS efficient than public. At that point congestion isn't an issue, and neither is pollution so cars are the BEST form of transport. No you don't need to connect every point to every point. Buses don't need to go down every cul-de-sac. You can build hubs. Reductio-ad-absurdum and straw men are terrible ways to try to win an argument. You've given up and resorted to putting ridiculous words in the other person's mouth then shooting them down instead.
What you call a "skills-based" game doesn't teach social skills like the value of co-operation etc. They're also often just as repedative as the JRPG or MMORPGs.
JRPG/MMORPGs do have skill aspects to them. They also often employ minigames, and not all of them are about putting in hours, though unfortunately for profit companies that charge monthly fees have plenty of motivation to keep you on the game for as long as possible.
You'd be better off arguing that any game that's too repetitive/formulaic without allowing for the child to learn something new aren't good for a child's development. Or more simply sucky games turn your mind to mush.
I'd say the product is probably as good as it could have been
That's a stretch. My understanding is that to record video with an iPhone, you have to hack the thing. I don't know what other oversights were made but a new high end phone with a video camera that won't record a video clip in 2008 is a joke.
No, a ghetto is forcibly moving people of a certain race/class/group into a certain location. I'm talking about doing the exact opposite. Encouraging (not forcing... why do you use that word?) people to move back into the city.
Fine then. Redefine ghetto to mean whatever you like - a piece of cheese? a space alien? - but that isn't common usage.
"A ghetto is a section of a city occupied by a group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."
"The term "ghetto" is now commonly used to refer to any poverty-stricken urban area."
"Ghettos are formed in three ways:[1]
* As ports of entry where minorities, and especially immigrant minorities.
* When the majority uses compulsion typically violence, hostility, or legal barriers to force minorities into particular areas.
* When the majority is willing and able to pay more than the minority to live with its own kind. (empasis is mine) " All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto
Feel free to find a more authoritative source.
It seems to me that since you don't even understand that the common usage or actual English language defition of the word is, you're not qualified to defend against my accusation that your policies would create ghettos.
Sometimes I write comments in a rush and their punctuation suffers. I really do wish you hadn't felt the need to bring it into the conversation. It wasn't really relevant. I guess my tone was pretty combative so I deserved that but I'd have preferred to stay on topic rather than have an irrelevant tit for tat.
Nonetheless the point I was making stands. Worker safety does not always follow if there are public safety elements to a job. Not every industry works like level 3 containment where checks, balances, inspections and certifications are so stringent. Even then things do slip through the cracks and accidents happen. Picking your job based on public safety implications and expecting worker safety to follow would be unwise.
I have no issue with someone consulting with various people who've demonstrated their wisdom in order to raise their children, providing decisions are based on sense and reason.
Unfortunately while I firmly believe that everyone MUST be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they wish to if you don't wish to live in a vile oppressive society, I also find that most people with a deity and a holy book would rather use it to justify the repetition of age old atrocities and the denial of science, wisdom and common sense, and to basically do damage. I've experienced this both on a communal and personal level, so my tolerance of people's religious beliefs isn't what it once was. I no longer see religion as neutral or benign.
One of my contentions is that the park-n-ride does not ease congestion in the long-term.
Your suggestion is that everyone be forced to live right next to where they work? Way to set society back. Way to limit people's choices and ability to form social circles.
The park-n-ride as you put it is certainly going to ease suggestion. It won't eliminate it, and to further ease it you need better infrastructure (roads, public transport). It'll certainly ease congestion more than pushing everyone into the city will.
No, but they are AT capacity. The trains are nice enough and kept up pretty well - but every seat is full. It's not really the sort of environment that is conducive to getting work done. Most people read, sleep, or listen to or watch their iPod. I used to reverse-commute on a rather empty train, and it was much more pleasant.
It depends on how you define capacity. They're AT capacity if you're moving CATTLE. If you're moving human beings and give a damn about their comfort, they're well above capacity. See that's your problem. You're happy to treat people like cattle. You wonder why I "vilify" you. Please!
And that will always be an automobile. You can leave whenever you want, no waiting, no crowding, so sharing, and generally faster even in traffic. Even if you had a great train system that took EVERYONE off of the road, all that would do is make a nice big empty highway just begging for some developer to come along and fill it up again. That is why the traffic in New York is pretty much no different than the traffic anywhere else. Sure, the regional rails are used - but so are the roads.
No it won't always be an automobile. You make it sound like driving to work is somehow hassle free. You have to drive an automobile, and that's work. You have to maintain an automobile and how much depends on how much you use it. You're in control of a potentially lethal piece of machinery so have to worry about whether or not you hit anything. Even if it's a minor accident it's a headache and a half.
Your car will be more attractive if your public transport is "AT (cattle) capacity", doesn't run reliably or frequently enough to be practical, or significantly extends your journey time, or more expensive, or less safe than a car. The only time a car is actually in and of itself more attractive than well run public transport is if you have a lot of baggage. We just define well run public transport very differently.
I'm tired of this entire argument. Lots more easily refuted nonsense by someone with no social skills. I'm not going to go point by point except for this gem...
I think that, if you read through the thread, you will find that I didn't turn "grizzly bear" on you until your absolutely hysterical declaration that you were taking your ball and going home.
Ah that makes your behaviour alright then, doesn't it? You're basically saying "hey its your fault I was a prick". Take some responsibility. Sorry should I have been more explicit? "I have chores to do and it's a school night" would have worked better for you. Child. I've got a life to live and saying that I won't be responding further isn't a personal attack and isn't reason to behave like an ass. (Clearly from your attitude you don't need a reason, just an excuse)
Oh and getting your friends (or another of your accounts) to mod me troll is asinine and childish. If you're going to do that get it right. People don't usually spontaneously mod the last comment in a long running argument as troll, especially for threads that are days old. They'll mod much higher up.
Are you telling me that there aren't un-gentrified areas in your city with affordable housing? What city is this? If that is really the case, then it does make sense to expand your city - but in a controlled and planned way.
Sydney, Australia. One of the least affordable cities in the world (top 20 in some recent article I read).
What? The ghettos already exist. I am in favor of encouraging the middle class to move BACK INTO cities so that they are no longer ghettos, but mixed communities.
The fact that ghettos exist doesn't mean you can't create new ones. If you force the poor back into the cities, do you think they're suddenly going to do the place up? With what resources?
I don't know what you mean by mixed community, but by ghetto I'm not referring to segregation by race.
Wikipedia says: "A ghetto is a section of a city occupied by a group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."
You're in favour of providing that pressure.
Well, I'm confused. Before you said that tax breaks to the poor to offset the toll increases wouldn't help because they don't pay taxes. So which is it, are they driving around affected by tolls or are they not?
Its easy to feign confusion when you misinterpret or misrepresent something on purpose. Have you heard of a tax threshold? Tax breaks usually favour the rich. In any case, if you're trying to force people out of their cars by making it too expensive, wouldn't such tax breaks negate that? Your tolls would cost big money which would be paid by the government. Heck privatise and it sounds like a good way to bleed public money into private companies.
When I said tax breaks don't help the poor it wasn't specifically in reference to tolls, and we weren't talking about poor and jobless people in that instance, we were talking about someone on a very low wage. You get points for your trolling though - that was a nice straw man.
Once again, I did not have to give up my car. I could afford one if I really needed it, but I don't really need it. My wife works across the street and I work from home. My daughter's school is walking distance. Why would I have a car?
Of for fuck sake man. How many people do you know that have that sort of convenience in their lives? How long do you think you can sustain it. What happens if you can't work from home or your wife gets a job across town, or your daughter goes to a local college? What if you need to look after family that get ill but don't live local? (Do you visit family???)
You don't even have to commute so what gives you the fucking right to even make suggestions that would place an enormous burden on people that you clearly don't even understand. Your arrogance is truly infuriating.
I don't know why you need to villainize me, but I suspect it is because you don't want to take what I'm saying seriously.
*I* want to villanize you? Get a clue.
You said that you want to: - Force people out of their cars "in a controlled manner" by making roads more expensive - Pressure people into the cities - You've said plenty about sustaining an economy that favours big business at the expense of the poor. - You seem happy to religate people to public transport that moves them like cattle (god forbid there's room to use a laptop) and call it the best in the world
You do an awesome job of villanizing yourself mate. The fact that you want to force/pressure people to give things up because those things don't matter to you is what's making you look bad.
You are very hung-up on this ghetto thing, but you still haven't described what mechanism would cause new ghettos to form. On the other hand, I have described how the fleeing of the middle class to the suburbs created ghettos in the cities, which isn't really controversial at all.
You've provided the mechanism. You want to provide pressure/incentive to move people into low paid housing in the city. That's the definition of creating a ghetto. What's more to explain exactly? The fact that you don't understand that isn't my problem.
Slashdot Mirror
In any event, it's not as if the whole world will plunge back into the stone age if we decide to minimize multi-tasking. If the modern world (that we made) doesn't offer large slabs of time to concentrate, then we should change it. It's not like the office is a force of nature that's bigger than all of us.
No it's not easy to change it. No more than it's easy to achieve world peace or eliminate poverty. In each case actions of a lot of people with competing interests have to align and they have to agree to change things. You can only go so far deciding that you want to minimize your own multitasking.
You really don't *have* to respond to each e-mail as it comes in, and you really don't have to have your phone on or your instant messaging client open ...unless of course that's exactly what's required in your job and if you don't do so you're reprimanded for it.
all of the time.
So you're telling me you've never had 2 urgent tasks, neither of which could wait?
There's a price to everything.
If you're worrying/stressing about something it is no surprise it will help age you. If you worry about 70 things instead of 7, it's no surprise it'll stress and age you faster. I'd say modern life is what's doing that.
If you're multitasking there's also an overhead for switching tasks. Some of your thought is occupied by the mental juggling act. This is also no surprise.
However what's the alternative? Modern life doesn't give you large slabs of time where you get to concentrate on one thing. If something comes up at work or at home while we're in the middle of something else that's important, what do you do? Multitasking isn't something our brains weren't built for. If we couldn't multitask we'd be very easy prey - just distract us and have us for lunch.
"Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Both statements ignore their own audience.
In your case you'd replace broken software with cheaper (free) broken software that includes certain rights/freedoms the other didn't have but which most users won't directly benefit from (I love my mother but I know she'll never recompile a thing in her life). You just don't care about the things that proprietary systems provide which Linux doesn't have. Others will.
In your friend's case all he wants out of his music is that it's "bouncy pop" but you care about subtle nuances that aren't the same in his alternative music. That's no different to the OS situation - it all depends on what you want out of the the object (music or software).
If you're smart you should be using this as an opportunity to re-assess what you've been telling people about software rather than claim music/art is somehow special. Software can be viewed as a form of art too if you want to push boundaries and definitions. One man's commodity is another man's sacred art.
Heck I've even listened to some blokes ramble on about women being a commodity and then wonder why their view of women is so warped and they can't find someone they're happy with. For a commodity to be a commodity the differences and subtleties have to be ignored. If you're not willing to do that - if the details matter to you - you're no longer talking about a commodity.
It's true that most people will only work for money and I don't blame them. As you said they have lives to lead.
However there's an awful lot of long term volunteer work that goes on, and while you could argue recognition is a motivation, often the recognition is meagre. For example I belong to a model builders society which operates a large club for a wide variety of remote control vehicles. I'm involved with the model aircraft and the gentleman who's been the representative for that section of the club and given up countless Friday evenings in meetings etc has only just left the job after being outsted - he was in it for 20 years and should have quit long ago. Mostly for every bit of prestige he got he got 20 of grief. He was well known but only locally within the club.
There are also long standing organisations that don't pay or pay poorly. Even when volunteers don't stay a rolling group of volunteers keeps them going. Classic examples are charities but you can argue religions are a special case. However how about volunteer fire service or red cross etc. (Yes they either have or are complimented by paid for work, but they are long term and the do "work" long term).
TV shows like American Idol reveal the fact that a substantial number of people can sing really, really well.
Sorry but you lost me right there. American Idiot (and all the new international variants thereof) prove the people who think they can sing should mostly stick to karaoke bars.
Maybe he's trying to get attention and distribution for his code ;-) Attempting to revoke the GPL almost guarantees someone will put a torrent on TPB immediately :-)
My point is that there's a reason that the alternatives cost more. Funny that you're happy to excuse and forgive the behaviour of the oil industry resisting finding a solution but want to push the burdens of change onto those who are in most financial need. You don't even see the irony in then saying we have to work with what we've go, do you?
I'm quite tired of arguing with you, since all you ever do is contradict yourself. If I don't go into detail, you criticise for that. When I prove a point against you, you either ignore it or go off on some new tagent or come up with a whole other argument that's easily shot down, or challenge me to find solutions for problems when your solutions won't fix the problem in the first place. Since as far as I know you have no power or will to actually institute your ridiculous reforms, the energy trying to convince you of anything is simply waste. You seem to think you have the answer to the world's problems and that those answers mostly involve pain for other people. You're wrong and your ideas would lead to poverty, not to mention social, technology and even economic decline, but trying to make you see that is like trying to teach a blind man to play baseball. I guess responding is pointless and that the only way to end this argument is to let you have the last word. Have fun with your dillusions. Feel free to hurl abuse, be conceited, pat yourself on the back or whatever else gets you off. Since you've proven that you can troll just enough to goad me into a response my solution is to not read any more of your drivel. I sincerely hope that either you're just trolling for sport, or you never have to make decisions on behalf of others.
Serious, that's the best you can counter? Learn how to have an honest argument.
Which form would that be? It is not responsible to plan based on faith.
The planet's being hit by more sunlight than we know what to do with. Storing some of it may help with the greenhouse problem.
The planet's covered with water. All that's required is to separate the hydrogen and oxygen using some other renewable energy source (see above) and we have pollutant free emissions at the least.
That's just one of many technologies out there. I'm not planing based on faith, I'm planning based on science.
Meanwhile it's people like you who worship economics that are the reason we're stuck with this oil addiction. Whwn you have a lucrative scarce resource is it any wonder that oil companies want to maintain their monopoly?
Well, on Easter Island they used giant canoes until they chopped down all of their trees. History is full of examples of cultures that exhausted all of their natural resources and then went into decline.
No. History is full of civilizations that went into decline for a wide variety of reasons and beause at the heart of it any culture isn't sustainable forever. Cultures and civilizations evolve till they can't anymore and die off. That doesn't prove your point at all.
You'll note that the deforestation of Easter Island had more to do with erecting giant statues than with building Canoes (see the Wikipedia article) so it was never a case of constructing too many canoes. Once again you're misrepresenting the truth. You'll notice their society suffered and eventually the civilization collapsed arund about the time their transport died off - yet another argument that transport is essential to a culture's prosperity. If anything it argues against your approach of pricing people out of their transportation.
Our current lifestyle is what is unworkable.
funny, it's working right now. You're confusing unworkable with unsustainable.
you haven't offered up any suggestions as to how to get us out of this mess other than some hand waving and repeating the mantra about improving regional rail.
Hand waving? Buddy all you've suggested is that pricing people out of their cars and forcing them onto already saturated cattle like public transport is the way to go. You've said people need to live nearer where they work, but haven't explained what a family is suppose to do if family members have jobs that are geographically diverse. You've said that if people can't go to work, no matter others will fill their shoes. You're the one doing the hand waving. One reason our society is so diverse and we have some degree of freedom is that people can sell their abilities to a wide geographic area, but you just want to concentrate people in the cities, and make them walk to work as if our society could sustain that.
I've suggested improved public transport infrastructure 9not just regional rail. (I've mentioned buses too have I not? I've suggested more regional hubs but not one in every cul de sac which was your absurd accusation). I've suggested improved roads instead of tollways (trolls under bridges is no way to run a transport infrastructure). I've now suggested use of alternate renewable fuels. In any case if you offer a solution and I say it's unworkable that doesn't mean I have to provide an alternative for my assessment to be correct. You're proposing drastic changes that would impose extreme hardships on some people so the onus is on YOU to prove that it makes things better. You haven't done so.
You've conducted this entire discussion childishly and dishonestly, misrepresenting both my ideas and yours every step of the way. Your logic has been flawed and every time I prove a point you try to squirm around it (eg. "my policies don't create ghettos I just want to pressure people into the city" when that's the very definition of how a ghetto is created). You're happy to use straw men and riductio ad absurdum to push your unsustainable nonsense. You can't let it go and you can't provide anything solid that will back up your own point of view so you have to attack mine even if the only way is to warp some of what I've said and deny the rest.
I am trying to make our lifestyle more sustainable, so that our children can live like we do (or better).
Perhaps, but what you'd end up actually doing is making journey times much longer, less comfortable, and getting to work more expensive (for some too expensive to make going to work viable). In short you'd be bringing down the standard of living any way you measure it.
The suburban lifestyle is not sustainable - it relies on cheap fuel, which is about to go away.
Cheap PETROL will go away. As it gets scarcer, it'll get more expensive and Petrol companies will hold on to their industry and fight tooth and nail to keep it. Once it's so scarce that most can't afford to buy it, there will be no need to hold onto it because it won't be profitable.
Cheap fuel will re-emerge in some other form. If we don't want to kill this planet I hope that eventually we'll move towards hydrogen and solve the safety, storage and transportation problems. While there are other renewable fuels no other fuel has nothing but water as a bi-product. If you honestly believe human beings are going to give up on mechanical transport you haven't paid attention to history for the last few thousand years. Name one civilization that's developed faster transport then abandoned it.
other factors like urgency might have taken precedence
This article gives details.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/transplant-girl-a-miracle/2008/01/24/1201157559928.html
I'm not proposing any sort of forced march here, simply suggesting that the subsidies are re-arranged so that they encourage people to live in an urban setting instead of a suburban one. ...
...
...
Ghettos are formed in three ways:
When the majority is willing and able to pay more than the minority to live with its own kind
Any of those definitions is fine. I'm trying to eliminate them.
Clearly the above isn't logically consistent. Try harder.
You may or may not mean well (I tend to doubt that you care about people based on what you said earlier) Regardless your ideas are unworkable.
I come up with this stuff when you refer to crowded trains as being acceptable.
As for cars in the suburbs yes, at a certain density public transport becomes LESS efficient than public. At that point congestion isn't an issue, and neither is pollution so cars are the BEST form of transport. No you don't need to connect every point to every point. Buses don't need to go down every cul-de-sac. You can build hubs. Reductio-ad-absurdum and straw men are terrible ways to try to win an argument. You've given up and resorted to putting ridiculous words in the other person's mouth then shooting them down instead.
I come up with this stuff when you refer to crowded trains that treat people as cattle as not being acceptable, but some of the best in the world.
As for cars in the suburbs yes, at a certain density public transport becomes LESS efficient than public. At that point congestion isn't an issue, and neither is pollution so cars are the BEST form of transport. No you don't need to connect every point to every point. Buses don't need to go down every cul-de-sac. You can build hubs. Reductio-ad-absurdum and straw men are terrible ways to try to win an argument. You've given up and resorted to putting ridiculous words in the other person's mouth then shooting them down instead.
A book like Hitchhikers Guide would make a poor game (IMO)
Actually, I thought the game was quite good.
and others agreed:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy/mobyrank
More details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(computer_game)
http://www.mobygames.com/game/hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy
http://www.douglasadams.com/creations/infocomjava.html
An interesting but artificial distinction.
Different games do require different skills.
What you call a "skills-based" game doesn't teach social skills like the value of co-operation etc. They're also often just as repedative as the JRPG or MMORPGs.
JRPG/MMORPGs do have skill aspects to them. They also often employ minigames, and not all of them are about putting in hours, though unfortunately for profit companies that charge monthly fees have plenty of motivation to keep you on the game for as long as possible.
You'd be better off arguing that any game that's too repetitive/formulaic without allowing for the child to learn something new aren't good for a child's development. Or more simply sucky games turn your mind to mush.
I'd say the product is probably as good as it could have been
That's a stretch. My understanding is that to record video with an iPhone, you have to hack the thing. I don't know what other oversights were made but a new high end phone with a video camera that won't record a video clip in 2008 is a joke.
No, a ghetto is forcibly moving people of a certain race/class/group into a certain location. I'm talking about doing the exact opposite. Encouraging (not forcing... why do you use that word?) people to move back into the city.
Fine then. Redefine ghetto to mean whatever you like - a piece of cheese? a space alien? - but that isn't common usage.
"A ghetto is a section of a city occupied by a group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."
"The term "ghetto" is now commonly used to refer to any poverty-stricken urban area."
"Ghettos are formed in three ways:[1]
* As ports of entry where minorities, and especially immigrant minorities.
* When the majority uses compulsion typically violence, hostility, or legal barriers to force minorities into particular areas.
* When the majority is willing and able to pay more than the minority to live with its own kind.
(empasis is mine)
"
All from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto
Feel free to find a more authoritative source.
It seems to me that since you don't even understand that the common usage or actual English language defition of the word is, you're not qualified to defend against my accusation that your policies would create ghettos.
Your punctuation notwithstanding
Sometimes I write comments in a rush and their punctuation suffers. I really do wish you hadn't felt the need to bring it into the conversation. It wasn't really relevant. I guess my tone was pretty combative so I deserved that but I'd have preferred to stay on topic rather than have an irrelevant tit for tat.
Nonetheless the point I was making stands. Worker safety does not always follow if there are public safety elements to a job. Not every industry works like level 3 containment where checks, balances, inspections and certifications are so stringent. Even then things do slip through the cracks and accidents happen. Picking your job based on public safety implications and expecting worker safety to follow would be unwise.
I have no issue with someone consulting with various people who've demonstrated their wisdom in order to raise their children, providing decisions are based on sense and reason.
Unfortunately while I firmly believe that everyone MUST be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they wish to if you don't wish to live in a vile oppressive society, I also find that most people with a deity and a holy book would rather use it to justify the repetition of age old atrocities and the denial of science, wisdom and common sense, and to basically do damage. I've experienced this both on a communal and personal level, so my tolerance of people's religious beliefs isn't what it once was. I no longer see religion as neutral or benign.
One of my contentions is that the park-n-ride does not ease congestion in the long-term.
Your suggestion is that everyone be forced to live right next to where they work? Way to set society back. Way to limit people's choices and ability to form social circles.
The park-n-ride as you put it is certainly going to ease suggestion. It won't eliminate it, and to further ease it you need better infrastructure (roads, public transport). It'll certainly ease congestion more than pushing everyone into the city will.
No, but they are AT capacity. The trains are nice enough and kept up pretty well - but every seat is full. It's not really the sort of environment that is conducive to getting work done. Most people read, sleep, or listen to or watch their iPod. I used to reverse-commute on a rather empty train, and it was much more pleasant.
It depends on how you define capacity. They're AT capacity if you're moving CATTLE. If you're moving human beings and give a damn about their comfort, they're well above capacity. See that's your problem. You're happy to treat people like cattle. You wonder why I "vilify" you. Please!
And that will always be an automobile. You can leave whenever you want, no waiting, no crowding, so sharing, and generally faster even in traffic. Even if you had a great train system that took EVERYONE off of the road, all that would do is make a nice big empty highway just begging for some developer to come along and fill it up again. That is why the traffic in New York is pretty much no different than the traffic anywhere else. Sure, the regional rails are used - but so are the roads.
No it won't always be an automobile. You make it sound like driving to work is somehow hassle free. You have to drive an automobile, and that's work. You have to maintain an automobile and how much depends on how much you use it. You're in control of a potentially lethal piece of machinery so have to worry about whether or not you hit anything. Even if it's a minor accident it's a headache and a half.
Your car will be more attractive if your public transport is "AT (cattle) capacity", doesn't run reliably or frequently enough to be practical, or significantly extends your journey time, or more expensive, or less safe than a car. The only time a car is actually in and of itself more attractive than well run public transport is if you have a lot of baggage. We just define well run public transport very differently.
I'm tired of this entire argument. Lots more easily refuted nonsense by someone with no social skills. I'm not going to go point by point except for this gem...
I think that, if you read through the thread, you will find that I didn't turn "grizzly bear" on you until your absolutely hysterical declaration that you were taking your ball and going home.
Ah that makes your behaviour alright then, doesn't it? You're basically saying "hey its your fault I was a prick". Take some responsibility. Sorry should I have been more explicit? "I have chores to do and it's a school night" would have worked better for you. Child. I've got a life to live and saying that I won't be responding further isn't a personal attack and isn't reason to behave like an ass. (Clearly from your attitude you don't need a reason, just an excuse)
Oh and getting your friends (or another of your accounts) to mod me troll is asinine and childish. If you're going to do that get it right. People don't usually spontaneously mod the last comment in a long running argument as troll, especially for threads that are days old. They'll mod much higher up.
Are you telling me that there aren't un-gentrified areas in your city with affordable housing? What city is this? If that is really the case, then it does make sense to expand your city - but in a controlled and planned way.
Sydney, Australia. One of the least affordable cities in the world (top 20 in some recent article I read).
What? The ghettos already exist. I am in favor of encouraging the middle class to move BACK INTO cities so that they are no longer ghettos, but mixed communities.
The fact that ghettos exist doesn't mean you can't create new ones. If you force the poor back into the cities, do you think they're suddenly going to do the place up? With what resources?
I don't know what you mean by mixed community, but by ghetto I'm not referring to segregation by race.
Wikipedia says:
"A ghetto is a section of a city occupied by a group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."
You're in favour of providing that pressure.
Well, I'm confused. Before you said that tax breaks to the poor to offset the toll increases wouldn't help because they don't pay taxes. So which is it, are they driving around affected by tolls or are they not?
Its easy to feign confusion when you misinterpret or misrepresent something on purpose. Have you heard of a tax threshold? Tax breaks usually favour the rich. In any case, if you're trying to force people out of their cars by making it too expensive, wouldn't such tax breaks negate that? Your tolls would cost big money which would be paid by the government. Heck privatise and it sounds like a good way to bleed public money into private companies.
When I said tax breaks don't help the poor it wasn't specifically in reference to tolls, and we weren't talking about poor and jobless people in that instance, we were talking about someone on a very low wage. You get points for your trolling though - that was a nice straw man.
Once again, I did not have to give up my car. I could afford one if I really needed it, but I don't really need it. My wife works across the street and I work from home. My daughter's school is walking distance. Why would I have a car?
Of for fuck sake man. How many people do you know that have that sort of convenience in their lives? How long do you think you can sustain it. What happens if you can't work from home or your wife gets a job across town, or your daughter goes to a local college? What if you need to look after family that get ill but don't live local? (Do you visit family???)
You don't even have to commute so what gives you the fucking right to even make suggestions that would place an enormous burden on people that you clearly don't even understand. Your arrogance is truly infuriating.
I don't know why you need to villainize me, but I suspect it is because you don't want to take what I'm saying seriously.
*I* want to villanize you? Get a clue.
You said that you want to:
- Force people out of their cars "in a controlled manner" by making roads more expensive
- Pressure people into the cities
- You've said plenty about sustaining an economy that favours big business at the expense of the poor.
- You seem happy to religate people to public transport that moves them like cattle (god forbid there's room to use a laptop) and call it the best in the world
You do an awesome job of villanizing yourself mate. The fact that you want to force/pressure people to give things up because those things don't matter to you is what's making you look bad.
You are very hung-up on this ghetto thing, but you still haven't described what mechanism would cause new ghettos to form. On the other hand, I have described how the fleeing of the middle class to the suburbs created ghettos in the cities, which isn't really controversial at all.
You've provided the mechanism. You want to provide pressure/incentive to move people into low paid housing in the city. That's the definition of creating a ghetto. What's more to explain exactly? The fact that you don't understand that isn't my problem.