Solar power does not allow for [making things small, hardened, and therefore easy to defend] because they require things light, spread out, and therefore difficult to defend.
This discussion reminds me of how General Walter C. Short ordered military planes on Oahu to be parked close together to protect them against sabotage in the days leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack.
For instance, law may require a warehouse builder to provide more parking than a warehouse needs, to cover the possibility that the warehouse is turned into a shopping mall.
Do you really think someone would open a shopping mall without adequate parking? Is forcing companies to succeed a legitimate function of government?
Roadside parking can be hazardous.
Everything on the road can be a hazard, even other cars. So the word "hazardous" is meaningless in this context.
Some business owners are unscrupulous, and to lower costs will build without a parking lot, forcing customers to park on the road.
For most Americans, the only viable path to increasing wealth is home ownership
That's true, because of your limited geographic mobility by virtue of owning a house, you are probably stuck in a low-paying job such that your only path to increasing wealth is home ownership. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
If parking lots would exist even without regulations, then do you agree that those regulations are unnecessary?
Who is more qualified to determine how many parking spaces a store should provide for its customers, the owner of the store or a formula written in the city's municipal code?
No, they exist because of laws forcing developers to build them. Name your city and state, and I will find that law in your city's building or zoning code.
See, the issue is how the developers organically designed cities.
"Organically"? Are you serious?
If cities didn't force developers to build more parking than the developer's own customers want, would you still drive everywhere without a guarantee of a cheap place to store your vehicle at your destination?
And without so much land wasted on vehicle storage, wouldn't there be more places within walking distance from any point? More jobs, more commerce, more grocery stores and entertainment venues, and more tax revenue? (Parking lots are non-places and pay hardly anything in taxes.)
And with fewer people driving, wouldn't there be more demand for mass transit and therefore more frequent service, more transit stations, and faster and more direct routes from A to B?
Organic? No, what I see around me is not organic development but the polar opposite!
If "they are doing something wrong that could have serious health implications" then they would rate in the lowest 10%. I wouldn't eat in one of the 10% least sanitary restaurants, would you?
I agree, any restaurant that gets a perfect food safety inspection score (if that ever actually happens) should get the highest possible cleanliness rating. On this point, where do we disagree?
This is why we need a contextual ranking system. Instead of giving the driver 1-5 stars, you mark that you prefer them either more or less than the previous driver. Then the software would use the Condorcet method to rank all drivers in order from least to most preferred, and assign each driver a percentile rank from 1% to 99%. This flattens the distribution curve and provides more granularity into how well each driver is liked.
It's like California's restaurant inspection grading system. Everyone's an "A" so it's tough to compare.
Nice try but one of the pest's few natural predators, the giant triton (a species of snail), has been unsustainably harvested from coral reefs for their shells. Their population has not recovered. So some population control of the COTS is definitely warranted.
Also: "If you love nature, stay away from it." --Henry David Thoreau
I hope we see more robots like this, to weed out Africanized honeybees from native bees (a small but loud propellor might do the trick), the invasive albizia trees in Kauai, the brown tree snake in Guam, etc. Also for forest management across North America, by strategically clearing out some of the younger trees in order to keep wildfire temperatures low and give the older trees a better chance to survive.
What you have is a cartel of homeowners who, in order to protect the wealth tied up in their homes, oppose anything that will add housing supply to the market.
And despite that, California and other blue states continue to subsidize the red states. If that stopped, blue states would be awash in cash and red states (except Texas) would have some very difficult choices to make, like when Kansas nearly bankrupted itself under conservative tax policy. And then the new federal caps on mortage interest and state tax deductions will only increase the flow of money from blue states to red states, by design.
Of course none of this excuses California's rate of poverty and homelessness. There's plenty of money in the state, it just isn't distributed very well. And that's self-defeating for Democrats because poor people tend vote less than wealthier people and when they do, they tend to vote Democrat.
But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road, and reasonably expect that this is not going to result in increased accidents.
Of course not. Something that's accidental is by definition unexpected. Therefore, it's impossible to predict whether stopping erratically will result in more or fewer accidents. It will probably result in more crashes, but that's something completely different.
The mortality rate is 39%. Luckily, human-to-human transmission so far is rare, it's usually poultry-to-human, but this could change as the virus evolves.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's very cheap. Employers tend to pay double that per employee.
Poor people don't drive, silly!
Except that's one way to prevent too many people from attending the same university.
This discussion reminds me of how General Walter C. Short ordered military planes on Oahu to be parked close together to protect them against sabotage in the days leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack.
Prisons have no incentive to rehabilitate and release, only to keep people locked up and collect the rent.
Were they destroyed in the fire also?
The negatives? Burned up in the same fire?
The digital copies? Also destroyed?
The backup tapes? Were they all kept onsite?
Isn't being locked up until you're cured deterrent enough?
In fact, isn't it more of a deterrent than being released when your time is up even if you haven't reformed?
Do you really think someone would open a shopping mall without adequate parking? Is forcing companies to succeed a legitimate function of government?
Everything on the road can be a hazard, even other cars. So the word "hazardous" is meaningless in this context.
How hard is it to put up a "no parking" sign?
And that's why people who own their own homes in Cleveland are wealthier those who rent in San Jose!
That's true, because of your limited geographic mobility by virtue of owning a house, you are probably stuck in a low-paying job such that your only path to increasing wealth is home ownership. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
If parking lots would exist even without regulations, then do you agree that those regulations are unnecessary?
Who is more qualified to determine how many parking spaces a store should provide for its customers, the owner of the store or a formula written in the city's municipal code?
Here you go!
No, they exist because of laws forcing developers to build them. Name your city and state, and I will find that law in your city's building or zoning code.
"Organically"? Are you serious?
If cities didn't force developers to build more parking than the developer's own customers want, would you still drive everywhere without a guarantee of a cheap place to store your vehicle at your destination?
And without so much land wasted on vehicle storage, wouldn't there be more places within walking distance from any point? More jobs, more commerce, more grocery stores and entertainment venues, and more tax revenue? (Parking lots are non-places and pay hardly anything in taxes.)
And with fewer people driving, wouldn't there be more demand for mass transit and therefore more frequent service, more transit stations, and faster and more direct routes from A to B?
Organic? No, what I see around me is not organic development but the polar opposite!
If "they are doing something wrong that could have serious health implications" then they would rate in the lowest 10%. I wouldn't eat in one of the 10% least sanitary restaurants, would you?
I agree, any restaurant that gets a perfect food safety inspection score (if that ever actually happens) should get the highest possible cleanliness rating. On this point, where do we disagree?
This is why we need a contextual ranking system. Instead of giving the driver 1-5 stars, you mark that you prefer them either more or less than the previous driver. Then the software would use the Condorcet method to rank all drivers in order from least to most preferred, and assign each driver a percentile rank from 1% to 99%. This flattens the distribution curve and provides more granularity into how well each driver is liked.
It's like California's restaurant inspection grading system. Everyone's an "A" so it's tough to compare.
Ok now what should we do about our socialized roads?
At least give a warning like for PDFs. I'm on mobile and every link wants to open the Twitter app.
Nice try but one of the pest's few natural predators, the giant triton (a species of snail), has been unsustainably harvested from coral reefs for their shells. Their population has not recovered. So some population control of the COTS is definitely warranted.
Also: "If you love nature, stay away from it." --Henry David Thoreau
I hope we see more robots like this, to weed out Africanized honeybees from native bees (a small but loud propellor might do the trick), the invasive albizia trees in Kauai, the brown tree snake in Guam, etc. Also for forest management across North America, by strategically clearing out some of the younger trees in order to keep wildfire temperatures low and give the older trees a better chance to survive.
What you have is a cartel of homeowners who, in order to protect the wealth tied up in their homes, oppose anything that will add housing supply to the market.
Indeed, states like Arizona and Alaska have their own natural solutions to homelessness. And remember when Nevada was caught shipping their homeless to California?
And despite that, California and other blue states continue to subsidize the red states. If that stopped, blue states would be awash in cash and red states (except Texas) would have some very difficult choices to make, like when Kansas nearly bankrupted itself under conservative tax policy. And then the new federal caps on mortage interest and state tax deductions will only increase the flow of money from blue states to red states, by design.
Of course none of this excuses California's rate of poverty and homelessness. There's plenty of money in the state, it just isn't distributed very well. And that's self-defeating for Democrats because poor people tend vote less than wealthier people and when they do, they tend to vote Democrat.
Of course not. Something that's accidental is by definition unexpected. Therefore, it's impossible to predict whether stopping erratically will result in more or fewer accidents. It will probably result in more crashes, but that's something completely different.
The mortality rate is 39%. Luckily, human-to-human transmission so far is rare, it's usually poultry-to-human, but this could change as the virus evolves.