The move to the suburbs and mass adoption of the car took place in only a decade or two, post WWII. It might take 20 years to turn around, but not doing so will fuck the planet for ever.
The best way to get people onto bikes is to create the equivalent of bike freeways that cyclists can travel along without any cars. This can be very cheaply done by putting a bike lane next to a river. The river running East-West in the city of Adelaide has this path, and every year or so the local paper has people from 5/10/15km out from the CBD leave home by car or ride along the river and every time the bikes win.
A grid of these bike-only paths (requiring only a 2m wide concrete path) at reasonable spacings across the city (so that say, someone only has to ride a max of 2-3km on the road) would make cycling safer, less polluting and quicker than car travel.
The only trouble is, until bike shops and sports-energy-bar manufacturers give more cash to politicians than oil & car manufacturers, this will be vigorously resisted.
>> Riding a bike and getting hit by a car is far more deadly than getting hit by a car while driving a car.
Cars kill 1 million a year in accidents and 1.5 million a year in air pollution (cars make up 50% of pollution which kills 3M globally)
Everyone riding bikes would cause FAR FAR less deaths, but the trouble is, if everyone does the right thing, the defectors (in game theory terms) who do the "wrong" thing get the payoff in personal safety. By driving a car for safety you gain personally, at the expense of everyone else.
>> Parking isn't a problem if you live someplace that has plenty of parking.
X isn't a problem if you live where X isn't a problem.
>> Expensive to society as a whole? Probably, but that's the choice we've made, and now we have to live with it.
Here you are expousing a horrible idea that seems to have gained mind-share (especially in politics): If you make a bad decision, don't admit or try and fix it but instead keep going down the wrong path as to change requires effort or to admit a past mistake.
It seems that the parent poster generalised, assuming he was talking to someone who lived in an urban area. You are one of the small percentage that doesn't, so it doesn't apply to you.
>> Walking or cycling short distances (a few miles or less) isn't exercise unless you weigh 300 pounds.
Are you joking? You can ride pretty easily on a bike, but it takes a lot more human exertion than pushing accelarate/brake and turning a wheel.
>> And how much smog do you think a bus with two people on puts out?
Probabvly the same amount as if three people catch it, so make sure you're on it!
16 of 23 patterns have a qualitatively simpler implementation in Lisp
-Visitor is unnecessary in Multi-dispatch polymorphism (as mentioned in the book it is a hand written implementation) -To be cheeky singleton is unnecessary when you have globals:)
>> This book might not do it in C but the ideas are pretty language independent.
Design patterns is a book about Object Oriented design, aimed at the C++/Java level of abstraction. In low level languages it is clumbsy to write them, and in higher ones, unnecessary.
>> Running, climbing, and "whacking things" is general requirement for many games. That's what makes it interactive entertainment.
There are plenty of ways you can interact with other humans. You can talk, touch, build things together, make love, share experiences, etc. Of all the things you can do, hitting them with a stick/shooting them with a gun is perhaps not the most highbrow and fulfilling, but it seem to be the one most simulated in computer games.
At the moment consumers pay for the oil they burn, but not for the air they poison. When I start recieving cheques every time I breathe fumes into my lungs then maybe we can start talking about a free market solution.
>> Should the person who bikes every day (Which is no big deal, BTW, heating and power generation consume far, far more oil than personal transporation)
Hmmmm, who to trust... some random slashdotter, or the US government energy departments, who say:
Nationally, the transportation sector consumes 65 percent of all the oil used in the United States
Other reasons: People become more invested in the status quo as they become older, and thus become more conservative.
Babyboomers make up a significant proportion of the population. Thus, when they were young, they were listened to, and lots of changes (equality of women/non-white etc) occured. Now that they are old, almost all countries in the English speaking (winners of WW2) world have become very conservative.
Evolution occurs when a new generation replaces the old. A society where the old outnumber the young will not evolve.
In the western world old people are sitting in their big houses with backyards while young families with children are crowded into small apartments.
Once the old people can no longer look after themselves, they will be put into a care home, and kept alive for decades using modern technology. I visited old folks homes for a while, and me playing chess with an old man for 1 hour a week was the highlight of his life, the highlight for another man was me rolling a ball back and forth on a table to his arthritic hands - it made me incredibly depressed.
It seems that living longer, no matter at what quality of life, is regarded unquestioningly as a good thing. People can and do suffer when they are old, and if they want to die, the state will not allow them that choice.
Old person: "I don't want to live, I am in immense pain" Government: "You are not allowed to end your suffering, we will force you to stay alive and in pain"
Keeping people alive has a cost. Every old person living in a semi-comatose state in a nursing home has costs to the person, the country and the world, the same amount of money could probably save 5-10 dying children in a developing country.
All I'm saying is, maybe we should think about quality of life rather than quantity.
I understand that current decisions make sense given current economic conditions.
Given the current real estate bubble, and the still low price of gas (sure people complain over there, but it is still very cheap, far cheaper than the "true cost" in terms of pollution, infrastructure and war) it is cheaper to drive a 1 tonne car for 30 minutes rather than live closer to work.
However, factors are likely to change and so communities should be constructed so that they are viable for hundreds of years, instead of the 5-10 years that most developers and people think ahead.
Have you ever been to Europe? Some cities are shitholes, but some still have the same streets that were designed for animal/human powered traffic and the communities are wonderful.
My inner city cottage in a 1 million person Australian city was built before cars, and I can get to work and the shops (bank/video/pub/2 grocery stores within 200m) without owning a car. The rest of my city however, has massive urban sprawl much like many US cities. I worry that people's desire for lifestyle is trumping long term thinking. It has always been like this, though - silly humans!
>> Where I live, except for a gas station about 5 minutes away by car, everything is 30 minutes away - by car. I commute about 30 miles each way to work
It seems that your lifestyle is only sustainable given extremely cheap energy. Maybe you should think about moving closer to where you work and useful services (or telecommuting) rather than waiting for technology to maintain your outrageous transportation demands.
It is terrible that governments and councils allow this kind of development where people need to use so much energy to perform daily functions. Energy won't always be this cheap.
The U.S. could print more money but usually doesn't as like any precious material, the more of it there is, the less it is worth. This would destabalize economies.
Yep, but not for a very long time, in the meantime everyone feels rich!
Backwards compatability can be dropped in favour of emulation. If I want to run an old game, I run dosbox, not wish for 16 bit code in a kernel.
While I was at highschool we had home work document trasfer problems. This was caused by later versions of Office opening documents in the old format (from home) and trying as hard as possible to save them in the latest format (which can't be read at home). Most families were forced to buy a new version of office, which probably made MS a lot of money.
Re:SOCIALIST lies, IQ is genetic!
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
BG&E wasn't the first game where you took photos of animals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales_-_the_Quest _for_Gold....the wildlife reservation which features Webby Vanderquack taking pictures of animals. The pictures, especially ones with rare animals such as pink elephants, bring rewards for the player similar to the treasure chest in the other levels.
Slashdot Mirror
>> forcing them to close their stoma to stop water loss
They will also need to open them for less time as the concentration of CO2 in the air rises.
The move to the suburbs and mass adoption of the car took place in only a decade or two, post WWII. It might take 20 years to turn around, but not doing so will fuck the planet for ever.
i e=UTF8&z=13&ll=-34.921267,138.599396&spn=0.095993, 0.21698&om=1
The best way to get people onto bikes is to create the equivalent of bike freeways that cyclists can travel along without any cars. This can be very cheaply done by putting a bike lane next to a river. The river running East-West in the city of Adelaide has this path, and every year or so the local paper has people from 5/10/15km out from the CBD leave home by car or ride along the river and every time the bikes win.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=adelaide&
A grid of these bike-only paths (requiring only a 2m wide concrete path) at reasonable spacings across the city (so that say, someone only has to ride a max of 2-3km on the road) would make cycling safer, less polluting and quicker than car travel.
The only trouble is, until bike shops and sports-energy-bar manufacturers give more cash to politicians than oil & car manufacturers, this will be vigorously resisted.
>> Riding a bike and getting hit by a car is far more deadly than getting hit by a car while driving a car.
Cars kill 1 million a year in accidents and 1.5 million a year in air pollution (cars make up 50% of pollution which kills 3M globally)
Everyone riding bikes would cause FAR FAR less deaths, but the trouble is, if everyone does the right thing, the defectors (in game theory terms) who do the "wrong" thing get the payoff in personal safety. By driving a car for safety you gain personally, at the expense of everyone else.
>> Parking isn't a problem if you live someplace that has plenty of parking.
X isn't a problem if you live where X isn't a problem.
>> Expensive to society as a whole? Probably, but that's the choice we've made, and now we have to live with it.
Here you are expousing a horrible idea that seems to have gained mind-share (especially in politics): If you make a bad decision, don't admit or try and fix it but instead keep going down the wrong path as to change requires effort or to admit a past mistake.
We can be better than this.
It seems that the parent poster generalised, assuming he was talking to someone who lived in an urban area. You are one of the small percentage that doesn't, so it doesn't apply to you.
>> Walking or cycling short distances (a few miles or less) isn't exercise unless you weigh 300 pounds.
Are you joking? You can ride pretty easily on a bike, but it takes a lot more human exertion than pushing accelarate/brake and turning a wheel.
>> And how much smog do you think a bus with two people on puts out?
Probabvly the same amount as if three people catch it, so make sure you're on it!
For a good overview of this, see http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/
:)
16 of 23 patterns have a qualitatively simpler implementation in Lisp
-Visitor is unnecessary in Multi-dispatch polymorphism (as mentioned in the book it is a hand written implementation)
-To be cheeky singleton is unnecessary when you have globals
>> This book might not do it in C but the ideas are pretty language independent.
Design patterns is a book about Object Oriented design, aimed at the C++/Java level of abstraction. In low level languages it is clumbsy to write them, and in higher ones, unnecessary.
Will that work for cooling?
>> Running, climbing, and "whacking things" is general requirement for many games. That's what makes it interactive entertainment.
There are plenty of ways you can interact with other humans. You can talk, touch, build things together, make love, share experiences, etc. Of all the things you can do, hitting them with a stick/shooting them with a gun is perhaps not the most highbrow and fulfilling, but it seem to be the one most simulated in computer games.
>> It is counterintuitive that gravity causes hot air balloons to rise
That's buoyancy.
At the moment consumers pay for the oil they burn, but not for the air they poison. When I start recieving cheques every time I breathe fumes into my lungs then maybe we can start talking about a free market solution.
....sorry kids, but back then we thought that ruining the planet so that a few generations could live in the suburbs was a pretty sweet deal.
>> Should the person who bikes every day (Which is no big deal, BTW, heating and power generation consume far, far more oil than personal transporation)
a tion_index.htm
Hmmmm, who to trust... some random slashdotter, or the US government energy departments, who say:
Nationally, the transportation sector consumes 65 percent of all the oil used in the United States
http://www.energy.sc.gov/Transportation/transport
It really saddens me that the idea of having people who poison the air that belongs to everyone should have to pay damages is considered radical.
You may like the short story The Moral Virologist by Greg Egan.
I have seen a number of articles on DBC & C++ on Artima
A quick google came up with:
http://www.artima.com/cppsource/deepspace.html
though search the Artima site and I'm sure you'll find lots more.
Another one:
http://www.ddj.com/184405997
Other reasons: People become more invested in the status quo as they become older, and thus become more conservative.
Babyboomers make up a significant proportion of the population. Thus, when they were young, they were listened to, and lots of changes (equality of women/non-white etc) occured. Now that they are old, almost all countries in the English speaking (winners of WW2) world have become very conservative.
Evolution occurs when a new generation replaces the old. A society where the old outnumber the young will not evolve.
>> live by example
I'm 26 - how should I do that? Take up smoking?
In the western world old people are sitting in their big houses with backyards while young families with children are crowded into small apartments.
Once the old people can no longer look after themselves, they will be put into a care home, and kept alive for decades using modern technology. I visited old folks homes for a while, and me playing chess with an old man for 1 hour a week was the highlight of his life, the highlight for another man was me rolling a ball back and forth on a table to his arthritic hands - it made me incredibly depressed.
It seems that living longer, no matter at what quality of life, is regarded unquestioningly as a good thing. People can and do suffer when they are old, and if they want to die, the state will not allow them that choice.
Old person: "I don't want to live, I am in immense pain"
Government: "You are not allowed to end your suffering, we will force you to stay alive and in pain"
Keeping people alive has a cost. Every old person living in a semi-comatose state in a nursing home has costs to the person, the country and the world, the same amount of money could probably save 5-10 dying children in a developing country.
All I'm saying is, maybe we should think about quality of life rather than quantity.
I understand that current decisions make sense given current economic conditions.
Given the current real estate bubble, and the still low price of gas (sure people complain over there, but it is still very cheap, far cheaper than the "true cost" in terms of pollution, infrastructure and war) it is cheaper to drive a 1 tonne car for 30 minutes rather than live closer to work.
However, factors are likely to change and so communities should be constructed so that they are viable for hundreds of years, instead of the 5-10 years that most developers and people think ahead.
Have you ever been to Europe? Some cities are shitholes, but some still have the same streets that were designed for animal/human powered traffic and the communities are wonderful.
My inner city cottage in a 1 million person Australian city was built before cars, and I can get to work and the shops (bank/video/pub/2 grocery stores within 200m) without owning a car. The rest of my city however, has massive urban sprawl much like many US cities. I worry that people's desire for lifestyle is trumping long term thinking. It has always been like this, though - silly humans!
>> Where I live, except for a gas station about 5 minutes away by car, everything is 30 minutes away - by car. I commute about 30 miles each way to work
It seems that your lifestyle is only sustainable given extremely cheap energy. Maybe you should think about moving closer to where you work and useful services (or telecommuting) rather than waiting for technology to maintain your outrageous transportation demands.
It is terrible that governments and councils allow this kind of development where people need to use so much energy to perform daily functions. Energy won't always be this cheap.
The U.S. could print more money but usually doesn't as like any precious material, the more of it there is, the less it is worth. This would destabalize economies.
Yep, but not for a very long time, in the meantime everyone feels rich!
Everyone likes car analogies. Think of an engine in a car.
The big corporations who control the media, they're the piston. The cylinder is your ass.
I used to work for EA, 80+ hours a week.
Now I work 37.5 hours a week doing financial web apps, and code games at home.
I make more money, have less pressure and get to spend more time on doing innovative, interesting games development.
The only downside is that I'll never have 6+ million people play a game I worked on, and young boys don't say "wow you have the coolest job ever!"
Backwards compatability can be dropped in favour of emulation. If I want to run an old game, I run dosbox, not wish for 16 bit code in a kernel.
While I was at highschool we had home work document trasfer problems. This was caused by later versions of Office opening documents in the old format (from home) and trying as hard as possible to save them in the latest format (which can't be read at home). Most families were forced to buy a new version of office, which probably made MS a lot of money.
For more on this, see Rawl's Theory of Justice.
BG&E wasn't the first game where you took photos of animals:
t _for_Gold ....the wildlife reservation which features Webby Vanderquack taking pictures of animals. The pictures, especially ones with rare animals such as pink elephants, bring rewards for the player similar to the treasure chest in the other levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckTales_-_the_Ques