For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.
First, there very few muscles around your waist other than the lower ab muscles. It's unlikely that you built your ab muscles enough to affect your pant size.
Second, do you realize how hard it is to get that bulky? Just working out regularly wont' get you bulky. I work out quite intesively, but in 4 years, I'm still not bulky. If you don't overeat, you won't become bulky.
That aside there are health and dietary implications. You heart has to work harder to supply blood, particularly under heavy exercise, you lose mobility, and endurance sports become a lot more difficult (not really a bad thing:-) ). I'm sort of half expecting to hear this kid keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out.
While it is true that being HUGE is as bad as being overweight, I'm not sure this kid really qualifies as huge. If he works out and builds more, perhaps, but right now I'd guess he's about as big as someone who works out moderately.
Speaking of working out moderatly, if you stretch enough you won't lose flexability. Also, it is possible to be big and still good at endurance sports so long as you continue to practice endurance. The biggest reason bodybuilders often suck at endurance is simply because they never practise it.
Anyway, I'm sure there are equally strong opinions on the matter from the Conservative supporters.
Probably not. I bet most people voting conservative simply don't understand political issues at all. They probably think that the Conservatives are the old Progressive Conservatives, and are simply voting for them out of habit or due to the Liberal screw ups.
With the elections only a week away, it's surprising that these important issues have attracted little or no debate.
This is no surprise at all. Besides not being relevant to Joe Average, these issues are not all that relevant even to techies this time round. Why?
Because there are FAR more important issues.
For me, I'll do anything to prevent Harper (Bush of the north) from getting in. He basically want's to turn Canada into the current USA, something I and all my friends are dead set against.
When things such as military involvment in questionable wars, our health care system, our public infrastructure, and modern social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are on the line, technological issues take back seat. As with last year, many liberal supporters are not *really* supporting the liberals, but rather voting anit-conservative.
Everyone should know by the way, that the current Conservative party is NOT the old progressive conservative party. They are mostly the Alliance and only changed their name to Conservative because they knew that the Alliance name is forever tarnished by thier last attempt to get elected.
As much as you like Linux, it's 'clusters' that still rule, not Linux. Linux is only used in a fair number of clusters because A) it's the most popular unix for x86 and B) they probably save on licenseing costs.
The important distinction for supercomputers is 'cluster' versus shared memory.
Legally, no, it isn't a requirement. Please, re-read my comment. And also bear in mind I'm not the original AC.
I understand your point, and was not trying to suggest that you in particular are snotty (please don't take it that way). I just feel that Apple has been quite a good open source citizen. They abide by all the rules, and even when they don't have to they release source (darwin) and work to make sure it is classified as a free license.
To then turn around and accuse them of being an 'evil' company because they don't release ALL their changes and code just isn't right. I'd say that they've shown plenty of goodwill, and have played by all the rules. How many other companies have done as much as Apple? IBM and SGI both released filesystems, Apple released an entire operating system. I realize darwin is not GPL compatible, but then GPL software is not BSD compatible (my choice of license), so I can't see holding it against Apple.
I'm far from a Windows fanboy. I use Linux almost all the time... I just happened to have a Windows box on my network atm.
You don't have to justify your comment by saying you really are a Linux user. It makes no difference to the issue at hand. Also, as much as some here think, it is not some moral requirement to use Linux. People here should stand of up linux oriented trolls (the ones going around claiming people are windows/mac/whatever fanboys) as much as windows oriented trolls or mac oriented trolls.
True, but is it a requirement that they have to give back ALL their changes given that the license doesn't require it?
Remember, they did not *have* to release darwin as free software. Yet they did. This is kind of like critizising someone who gives money to the homeless, but decides to keep some for themselves.
The open source comminuty can be exceptionally snotty in this regard. A corporation helps out the community, then some people in the community turn around and istead of saying, gee thanks, they say, "But I want ALL your ip! You are an evil company!".
And taking and not giving back is perfectly in keeping with open source principles, and even some free software licenses like BSD. If it were not, it would be explicitly forbidden in the definiton of free software or open source!
It's not in line with copyleft, but copyleft is not everything.
You must have not read the license on the original X11 server not requiring this. If the authors didn't want to allow this, they would have GPL'ed it. They didn't and hence they expect this kind of use.
Some people are really altruistic you know. Obviously you are not.
You know, I'm one of the few here who actually agree's with you for the most part. But I do think you are overly pessamistic in one way: Some of the current offering are not all that bad.
For instance, the new xserver by KiethP is actually looking quite elegant and modern while still retaining backwards compatability. It's promising, it has hardware excelerated everything with a display postscript like system (similar to OS X).
Also, out of KDE and GNOME, GNOME is actually quite good in some ways. Most notibly , the UI standard for GNOME and philosophy of 'keep it simple' is really quite good. Having just got my first mac and experienced the quality and integration that is OS X, I can also say that much of the GNOME UI is modeled after OS X. That's not to say that it doesn't have a loooong way to go of course. But it is promising.
The rest of your arguments I totally agree with. Linux needs to be more binary friendly, it needs more standardization in terms of installations, it needs only one standard desktop (I'd highly suggest GNOME, even though it may not be where it needs to be right now), and all apps should use the standard libraries.
It's sad that Linux may never achieve this due to the sheltered views of it's 'community'. Such is life, and people like you and me, who are more realists than anything, will forever be called 'trolls' and 'apologists' and other childish things.
Just because some pro-iPod dumbarse gadget site feels the need to plug iPods (look at that, correct place and time) doesn't mean Slashdot has to repeat their drivel.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way about slashdot and Linux. Linux this Linux that. Things get mentioned only because they use Linux, not because they present some 'other' cool idea that just happens to use Linux, but could easily use any other OS.
So I guess we should censor shameless Linux plugs too. Man, that would require a lot of censoring.
Pretty cool way to beef up your Linux "street cred" if you ask me...
It always amuses me how some people seem to think that 'street cred' is in any way important to Sun or any other large company. Sure, there is the marketing aspect of it, but that's about it. Will any of the basement 'leet' Linux users ever give money to Sun for services? Nope. Does sun care what these people think? Nope.
Street cred = useless Linux market hype = priceless
IMO, the way this should work is to disallow an app to be executed for the first time, period, except explicitly.
This is what clicking 'Yes' in the dialog box does. Explicitly runs an app.
There should be no dialog asking them if they want to open it for the first time, it should simply be disallowed, period.
This you may as well remove the functionality completely, considering you just removed the only way to run a handler explicitly.
There is no way around this. Either a user knows that an app is safe to run, or they don't. I haven't tried it yet so I don't know if this is the case already, but the ONLY solution to the user problem is the solution taken by windows. Every time the dialog pops up, put a phrase saying "If you don't understand, click no because you could be hax0red".
Vicarious Visions may be *porting* doom 3 to the console, but it's still the same game engine as the PC version and it still uses the same types of graphics hardware extensions, hence ID is developing games that target both systems. Not sure what you are trying to achieve here by playing the technical fact game.
Unreal 3 is not out yet, and next generate consoles will be using next generation graphics hardware as well, so there is a good chance that the new unreal engine will run on consoles as well.
I'm not sure why you are trying to be so agressive in your post considering you are agreeing with me that hardware is not limiting the PC in any way.
The consoles ARE getting more games than the PC these days, but it's not due to hardware, but rather a number of other factors including set hardware specs as you mention.
Umm, you do know that the consoles use the same video hardware as the PC right? And you also know that ID makes games for both PC and console now right?
PC games are not lagging because of hardware. There are other factors, like price for instance (consoles are much cheaper for the same hardware), playing on a TV, controllers, less console warez... etc.
But it certainly is not due to the technology, since it's the same.
But most new genes are found in 'intergenic space'. That it has a different structure is interesting for sure, but I just don't see the focus of being found in 'intergenic space' to be all that important.
The article almost makes it sound like this is about junk DNA. It's not though, it's about this new type of gene. That's why I feel it's a bad article. And it would have been nice if they at least provided a reference to the lab or paper.
Sorry, but I still think it's a bad article. What do they mean by 'junk DNA'? Is it a repeat (turns out no), intergenic, intron? Junk DNA is a terrible term to use. As I said in my previous post, every new gene or regulatory region is found in so called 'junk DNA'. This is nothing new.
The important part of the article is that this is a new never before seen *type* of gene. That's the news here, not this sillyness about junk DNA. That part should have been completely left out IMO.
As usual, the quality of a mainstream news outlet reporting on science news is bad. This really has nothing to do with 'junk DNA' from what I can tell. Also, the term 'junk DNA' is terrible. There are repeats (sometimes referred to as 'junk DNA') and there are introns and intergenic regions with no *known* function (also referred to as 'junk DNA').
So while it is technically true that the gene was found in 'junk DNA', it's also true that EVERY new gene is found in junk DNA. That is not what is interesting here at all.
Basically, they found a gene that turns another gene on or off via it's RNA product. This is what the intereseting news is.
I would be perfectly cool with living in hive like structure underground that could have some natural light piped in, etc.
Except that many people have SAD (seasonal affective disorder). They need LOTS of light or get massivly depressed. This would be VERY bad for them. I highly doubt you could get enough natural light down there.
Try running LinuxPPC on your mac some day, and you will see a huge difference in general snappiness.
But then the OS is 'doing less' too, so that's not really a good comparison. Linux GUI's are not as advanced as OS X at this point. They don't use a display postcript like system yet, don't yet have the same level of integration in terms of plugable software frameworks, etc etc
This is separate from AltiVec, which is an instruction set, not just a register setup...
I'm still not really clear how it's different from AltiVec since you could easily build binaries using diferent registers as well. But then I don't have all the details either. It could well be true I suppose. Not sure why the ABI would require that binaries not use some registers, seems weird.
I dunno about all that but OS X doesn't seem slow at all to me. But to give you a little bit more technical of an answer, I'm sure many OS X programs use altivec, which would break compatability with older processors without it. How does apple maintain compatability? Each application can acutally contain multiple 'binaries', one for older machines, one for newer machines, maybe one for 64 bit machines even.
In Europe - Northern Germany (Oldenburg) to be exact - there are walking areas, and these rather samll delivery trucks come early in the morning.
Yeah, this is what I was referring to as a walking street. I think most european cities have such streets.
But it wouldn't make sense to make, say, the entire downtown area of a city into a walking only area though. Some buildings like hospitals, banks, couriers, etc, need large deliveries throughout the day. So the walking areas would have to be chosen with these things in mind.
But walking streets are totally cool and we really need more of them in north america.
2. After they come back - they can vote on a central carfree zone in their city.
I don't know about a totally car free zone, trucks still need to be able to make deliveries for instance. But we definatly need more walking streets like in Europe. Driving downtown in most cities is futile anyways, and walking streets add so much character and class to a city.:)
The city should lay down some serious linear transit routes - in order to encourage as much brownfield redevelopment, and density conversions as possible.
Yes, more trains/subways are needed.
Low density neighborhoods in the line of High Density Trasit should be scheduled for redesign "with all deliberate haste".
This wouldn't fly I don't think. You can't just kick people out of their houses, as convenient as that may be.
We should allocate natural beauty for High Density Housing - rather than the other - which is to reward ineffecient design with luxurious vistas.
This is not as simple as you make it out. For instance, here in Toronto we have 'nice' neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods are nice precisly *because* they have no high desnsity housing. Low density housing areas can have lots of nice trees and be located in areas with rolling hills. High density housing by it's very nature needs flat areas and tends to ruin nature directly around it. Basically, I'm saying that the low density areas are not nice because they have nice vistas, most don't.
Also, in Toronto high density housing IS being built along the lake front. But there are two problems: there is no mass transit from that area (!) and the high density houseing obscures the view from previous high density housing built just a few lots inland. So it's only possible for a select few high density buildings to have nice views.
a cellphone GPS based service which garentees a small electric car is waiting for you at at the terminal.
A similar service which can pick you up at the terminal and take you and a few others to work - Like a disney golf-train.
Given the cellphone can know where you are - and where you need too get - it could optimize a last mile service based on current demand and requirements - rather than a fixed - use it or lose it schedule.
Nice ideas, but I'm skeptical that the oil/car companies would let this fly.:( People have tried selling this idea, and cities just don't go for it. Maybe it needs some more voices calling for it or something.
Yes, that's all nice, but it doesn't help the many many *existing* cities any. They already have buildings sprawled all over the place.
If you are encouraging building more NEW cities, then I have to totally disagree with you. We need to fix the ones we have somehow. You can't get people out of their cars unless you provide them with a humane way of alternate travel. Trains are good, provided they actually reach people (hard), and are not overcrowded like the subways in Toronto. I voluntarily worked an extra hour every day just to avoid rush out on the overcrowded subways. That kind of crappy mass transit just won't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.
:-) ). I'm sort of half expecting to hear this kid keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out.
First, there very few muscles around your waist other than the lower ab muscles. It's unlikely that you built your ab muscles enough to affect your pant size.
Second, do you realize how hard it is to get that bulky? Just working out regularly wont' get you bulky. I work out quite intesively, but in 4 years, I'm still not bulky. If you don't overeat, you won't become bulky.
That aside there are health and dietary implications. You heart has to work harder to supply blood, particularly under heavy exercise, you lose mobility, and endurance sports become a lot more difficult (not really a bad thing
While it is true that being HUGE is as bad as being overweight, I'm not sure this kid really qualifies as huge. If he works out and builds more, perhaps, but right now I'd guess he's about as big as someone who works out moderately.
Speaking of working out moderatly, if you stretch enough you won't lose flexability. Also, it is possible to be big and still good at endurance sports so long as you continue to practice endurance. The biggest reason bodybuilders often suck at endurance is simply because they never practise it.
Anyway, I'm sure there are equally strong opinions on the matter from the Conservative supporters.
Probably not. I bet most people voting conservative simply don't understand political issues at all. They probably think that the Conservatives are the old Progressive Conservatives, and are simply voting for them out of habit or due to the Liberal screw ups.
With the elections only a week away, it's surprising that these important issues have attracted little or no debate.
This is no surprise at all. Besides not being relevant to Joe Average, these issues are not all that relevant even to techies this time round. Why?
Because there are FAR more important issues.
For me, I'll do anything to prevent Harper (Bush of the north) from getting in. He basically want's to turn Canada into the current USA, something I and all my friends are dead set against.
When things such as military involvment in questionable wars, our health care system, our public infrastructure, and modern social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are on the line, technological issues take back seat. As with last year, many liberal supporters are not *really* supporting the liberals, but rather voting anit-conservative.
Everyone should know by the way, that the current Conservative party is NOT the old progressive conservative party. They are mostly the Alliance and only changed their name to Conservative because they knew that the Alliance name is forever tarnished by thier last attempt to get elected.
As much as you like Linux, it's 'clusters' that still rule, not Linux. Linux is only used in a fair number of clusters because A) it's the most popular unix for x86 and B) they probably save on licenseing costs.
The important distinction for supercomputers is 'cluster' versus shared memory.
Yes, preview is good. I really should use it.
...
People here should stand up to linux oriented trolls
Legally, no, it isn't a requirement. Please, re-read my comment. And also bear in mind I'm not the original AC.
I understand your point, and was not trying to suggest that you in particular are snotty (please don't take it that way). I just feel that Apple has been quite a good open source citizen. They abide by all the rules, and even when they don't have to they release source (darwin) and work to make sure it is classified as a free license.
To then turn around and accuse them of being an 'evil' company because they don't release ALL their changes and code just isn't right. I'd say that they've shown plenty of goodwill, and have played by all the rules. How many other companies have done as much as Apple? IBM and SGI both released filesystems, Apple released an entire operating system. I realize darwin is not GPL compatible, but then GPL software is not BSD compatible (my choice of license), so I can't see holding it against Apple.
I'm far from a Windows fanboy. I use Linux almost all the time... I just happened to have a Windows box on my network atm.
You don't have to justify your comment by saying you really are a Linux user. It makes no difference to the issue at hand. Also, as much as some here think, it is not some moral requirement to use Linux. People here should stand of up linux oriented trolls (the ones going around claiming people are windows/mac/whatever fanboys) as much as windows oriented trolls or mac oriented trolls.
True, but is it a requirement that they have to give back ALL their changes given that the license doesn't require it?
Remember, they did not *have* to release darwin as free software. Yet they did. This is kind of like critizising someone who gives money to the homeless, but decides to keep some for themselves.
The open source comminuty can be exceptionally snotty in this regard. A corporation helps out the community, then some people in the community turn around and istead of saying, gee thanks, they say, "But I want ALL your ip! You are an evil company!".
And taking and not giving back is perfectly in keeping with open source principles, and even some free software licenses like BSD. If it were not, it would be explicitly forbidden in the definiton of free software or open source!
It's not in line with copyleft, but copyleft is not everything.
You must have not read the license on the original X11 server not requiring this. If the authors didn't want to allow this, they would have GPL'ed it. They didn't and hence they expect this kind of use.
Some people are really altruistic you know. Obviously you are not.
You know, I'm one of the few here who actually agree's with you for the most part. But I do think you are overly pessamistic in one way: Some of the current offering are not all that bad.
For instance, the new xserver by KiethP is actually looking quite elegant and modern while still retaining backwards compatability. It's promising, it has hardware excelerated everything with a display postscript like system (similar to OS X).
Also, out of KDE and GNOME, GNOME is actually quite good in some ways. Most notibly , the UI standard for GNOME and philosophy of 'keep it simple' is really quite good. Having just got my first mac and experienced the quality and integration that is OS X, I can also say that much of the GNOME UI is modeled after OS X. That's not to say that it doesn't have a loooong way to go of course. But it is promising.
The rest of your arguments I totally agree with. Linux needs to be more binary friendly, it needs more standardization in terms of installations, it needs only one standard desktop (I'd highly suggest GNOME, even though it may not be where it needs to be right now), and all apps should use the standard libraries.
It's sad that Linux may never achieve this due to the sheltered views of it's 'community'. Such is life, and people like you and me, who are more realists than anything, will forever be called 'trolls' and 'apologists' and other childish things.
Just because some pro-iPod dumbarse gadget site feels the need to plug iPods (look at that, correct place and time) doesn't mean Slashdot has to repeat their drivel.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way about slashdot and Linux. Linux this Linux that. Things get mentioned only because they use Linux, not because they present some 'other' cool idea that just happens to use Linux, but could easily use any other OS.
So I guess we should censor shameless Linux plugs too. Man, that would require a lot of censoring.
Pretty cool way to beef up your Linux "street cred" if you ask me...
It always amuses me how some people seem to think that 'street cred' is in any way important to Sun or any other large company. Sure, there is the marketing aspect of it, but that's about it. Will any of the basement 'leet' Linux users ever give money to Sun for services? Nope. Does sun care what these people think? Nope.
Street cred = useless
Linux market hype = priceless
IMO, the way this should work is to disallow an app to be executed for the first time, period, except explicitly.
This is what clicking 'Yes' in the dialog box does. Explicitly runs an app.
There should be no dialog asking them if they want to open it for the first time, it should simply be disallowed, period.
This you may as well remove the functionality completely, considering you just removed the only way to run a handler explicitly.
There is no way around this. Either a user knows that an app is safe to run, or they don't. I haven't tried it yet so I don't know if this is the case already, but the ONLY solution to the user problem is the solution taken by windows. Every time the dialog pops up, put a phrase saying "If you don't understand, click no because you could be hax0red".
Vicarious Visions may be *porting* doom 3 to the console, but it's still the same game engine as the PC version and it still uses the same types of graphics hardware extensions, hence ID is developing games that target both systems. Not sure what you are trying to achieve here by playing the technical fact game.
Unreal 3 is not out yet, and next generate consoles will be using next generation graphics hardware as well, so there is a good chance that the new unreal engine will run on consoles as well.
I'm not sure why you are trying to be so agressive in your post considering you are agreeing with me that hardware is not limiting the PC in any way.
The consoles ARE getting more games than the PC these days, but it's not due to hardware, but rather a number of other factors including set hardware specs as you mention.
Umm, you do know that the consoles use the same video hardware as the PC right? And you also know that ID makes games for both PC and console now right?
PC games are not lagging because of hardware. There are other factors, like price for instance (consoles are much cheaper for the same hardware), playing on a TV, controllers, less console warez... etc.
But it certainly is not due to the technology, since it's the same.
But most new genes are found in 'intergenic space'. That it has a different structure is interesting for sure, but I just don't see the focus of being found in 'intergenic space' to be all that important.
The article almost makes it sound like this is about junk DNA. It's not though, it's about this new type of gene. That's why I feel it's a bad article. And it would have been nice if they at least provided a reference to the lab or paper.
Sorry, but I still think it's a bad article. What do they mean by 'junk DNA'? Is it a repeat (turns out no), intergenic, intron? Junk DNA is a terrible term to use. As I said in my previous post, every new gene or regulatory region is found in so called 'junk DNA'. This is nothing new.
The important part of the article is that this is a new never before seen *type* of gene. That's the news here, not this sillyness about junk DNA. That part should have been completely left out IMO.
As usual, the quality of a mainstream news outlet reporting on science news is bad. This really has nothing to do with 'junk DNA' from what I can tell. Also, the term 'junk DNA' is terrible.
There are repeats (sometimes referred to as 'junk DNA') and there are introns and intergenic regions with no *known* function (also referred to as 'junk DNA').
So while it is technically true that the gene was found in 'junk DNA', it's also true that EVERY new gene is found in junk DNA. That is not what is interesting here at all.
Basically, they found a gene that turns another gene on or off via it's RNA product. This is what the intereseting news is.
I would be perfectly cool with living in hive like structure underground that could have some natural light piped in, etc.
Except that many people have SAD (seasonal affective disorder). They need LOTS of light or get massivly depressed. This would be VERY bad for them. I highly doubt you could get enough natural light down there.
Try running LinuxPPC on your mac some day, and you will see a huge difference in general snappiness.
...
But then the OS is 'doing less' too, so that's not really a good comparison. Linux GUI's are not as advanced as OS X at this point. They don't use a display postcript like system yet, don't yet have the same level of integration in terms of plugable software frameworks, etc etc
This is separate from AltiVec, which is an instruction set, not just a register setup
I'm still not really clear how it's different from AltiVec since you could easily build binaries using diferent registers as well. But then I don't have all the details either. It could well be true I suppose. Not sure why the ABI would require that binaries not use some registers, seems weird.
I dunno about all that but OS X doesn't seem slow at all to me. But to give you a little bit more technical of an answer, I'm sure many OS X programs use altivec, which would break compatability with older processors without it. How does apple maintain compatability? Each application can acutally contain multiple 'binaries', one for older machines, one for newer machines, maybe one for 64 bit machines even.
In Europe - Northern Germany (Oldenburg) to be exact - there are walking areas, and these rather samll delivery trucks come early in the morning.
Yeah, this is what I was referring to as a walking street. I think most european cities have such streets.
But it wouldn't make sense to make, say, the entire downtown area of a city into a walking only area though. Some buildings like hospitals, banks, couriers, etc, need large deliveries throughout the day. So the walking areas would have to be chosen with these things in mind.
But walking streets are totally cool and we really need more of them in north america.
Ok, I see your point and agree. If only cities would go for these ideas. Mailing our gov. reps might help I guess.
2. After they come back - they can vote on a central carfree zone in their city.
:)
:( People have tried selling this idea, and cities just don't go for it. Maybe it needs some more voices calling for it or something.
I don't know about a totally car free zone, trucks still need to be able to make deliveries for instance. But we definatly need more walking streets like in Europe. Driving downtown in most cities is futile anyways, and walking streets add so much character and class to a city.
The city should lay down some serious linear transit routes - in order to encourage as much brownfield redevelopment, and density conversions as possible.
Yes, more trains/subways are needed.
Low density neighborhoods in the line of High Density Trasit should be scheduled for redesign "with all deliberate haste".
This wouldn't fly I don't think. You can't just kick people out of their houses, as convenient as that may be.
We should allocate natural beauty for High Density Housing - rather than the other - which is to reward ineffecient design with luxurious vistas.
This is not as simple as you make it out. For instance, here in Toronto we have 'nice' neighbourhoods. Those neighbourhoods are nice precisly *because* they have no high desnsity housing. Low density housing areas can have lots of nice trees and be located in areas with rolling hills. High density housing by it's very nature needs flat areas and tends to ruin nature directly around it. Basically, I'm saying that the low density areas are not nice because they have nice vistas, most don't.
Also, in Toronto high density housing IS being built along the lake front. But there are two problems: there is no mass transit from that area (!) and the high density houseing obscures the view from previous high density housing built just a few lots inland. So it's only possible for a select few high density buildings to have nice views.
a cellphone GPS based service which garentees a small electric car is waiting for you at at the terminal.
A similar service which can pick you up at the terminal and take you and a few others to work - Like a disney golf-train.
Given the cellphone can know where you are - and where you need too get - it could optimize a last mile service based on current demand and requirements - rather than a fixed - use it or lose it schedule.
Nice ideas, but I'm skeptical that the oil/car companies would let this fly.
Yes, that's all nice, but it doesn't help the many many *existing* cities any. They already have buildings sprawled all over the place.
If you are encouraging building more NEW cities, then I have to totally disagree with you. We need to fix the ones we have somehow. You can't get people out of their cars unless you provide them with a humane way of alternate travel. Trains are good, provided they actually reach people (hard), and are not overcrowded like the subways in Toronto. I voluntarily worked an extra hour every day just to avoid rush out on the overcrowded subways. That kind of crappy mass transit just won't cut it.