Well that is stupid, then... if they're going to use a "photograph of the UK as seen from space" projection, then they ought to set the point of view directly above the centroid of the country (or indeed, the centroid of the relevant area, in the zoomed-in cases).
I do remember upgrading CPUs from 486sx to dx to adding in a 66mhz overclocking chip etc...
However, it wasn't very long before upgrading a cpu meant buying a new motherboard.
a "libertarian-whateveryouguyscalltherestofus" divide
"Authoritarian," "statist" or "totalitarian" might be the word you're looking for. (Not "socialist," or "liberal" though, as those are not mutually exclusive with libertarian -- see the Green Party as an example.)
New Civil Engineers are hard to come by. Many cities have had to start doing nation wide recruiting.
If you know of EIT-level transportation engineer jobs in Atlanta, I'm all ears. I couldn't find one, so now I'm working as a software developer instead. (Of course, the developer job pays 50% more than the engineering job I was laid off from, so it'd take a lot to convince me to switch back at this point.)
That's funny, but I'm sure the snow and accidents and abandoned cars had something to do with it, not just the capacity of the roads.
Only in the sense that the snow caused everybody to panic and leave at the same time. The congestion happened before the roads had more than a bare dusting of snow.
Maybe if you're trying to travel a medium to long distance. If I'm going from my house to the grocery store 1.5 miles away, the bottlenecks are pretty minor and have no problem coping with my neighborhood and the 4 or 5 others that frequent that store.
Even a 1.5 mile trip probably involves a collector road (if not a minor arterial). If you're in the suburbs, said collector (or arterial) is probably the only way to get there, since there isn't a small-block-size street grid. The bottlenecks are minor in normal circumstances only because all your neighbors are not trying to use that collector all at once.
I apologize; I assumed you were capable of comprehending and following a conversation. Clearly, I was mistaken. Let me recap for you:
You were responding to a thread about "white flight." You denied that it was about racism, and instead asserted it was about crime. I directly refuted your assertion by pointing out that white flight occurred even without crime. You then accused me of failing to make a point and introduced a non-sequitur about "government mandate," which is rhetorically equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Has that alleviated your confusion, or do I need to use smaller words?
I am sorry if that offends you but you have never lived in say Atlanta.
LOL! Oh man, that is hilarious! Why, you might ask?
Because I do, in fact, live in Atlanta (in one of the neighborhoods between downtown and Decatur... I don't want to get too specific on the Internet, of course). The mortgage for my ~1500 ft^2, 3-bedroom house is about $700/month (and that's without paying much of a down payment either, although I got some down-payment assistance from the Atlanta Development Authority). Admittedly, I could probably rent it out for $1400/month if I spent some money on granite counters and whatnot...
My neighborhood is also nice and probably has more amenities than yours (a commercial district including quite a few interesting restaurants, a bunch of events/festivals throughout the year, a park, a library, etc.). I also see green when I look out the window: both the plants in my yard and the soon-to-be-park across the street.
The apartment I used to live in, northwest of Georgia Tech in the Underwood Hills neighborhood, was also in a nice area, 2 bedrooms, pretty decent, and $800/month. I'm a little sad that they didn't open the food truck park on Howell Mill Road until after I moved...
In both locations, the traffic is not nearly as bad as (for example) Cobb Parkway, Tara Blvd, Roswell Road, or other large arterials outside the perimeter (let alone 285 itself!). Admittedly, my apartment location was better on traffic than my house location is because it was north of the Downtown Connector, but that's not that big a deal. At any rate, I can get to my job out by Sugarloaf Mills about as fast from my house in-town (30 miles away) than I could from my parents' house in Gwinnett (10 miles away) because the traffic on Sugarloaf Parkway sucks that bad.
(By the way: the slum I was thinking of in my previous post was English Avenue/Vine City. The damn place is surrounded by downtown, Georgia Tech and the Beltline, yet it somehow persists in being a shithole. I don't know how it manages to stay so bad for so long, but I'm keeping a close watch so that I can hopefully invest in it when it starts to gentrify.)
It doesn't matter if it is a slum, the land price inside the city is many times the cost of land outside of the city. You know supply and demand. There is not much land in the city so supply is low. Now to be fair sense they aren't great areas the land is not in high demand, but there is not enough effect to offset the low supply.
If this were true, the slums would get bulldozed or gentrified. Since the slums instead persist for decades, it is clearly not true.
Add on top of that the large cost of renovating said areas, the cost of stricter regulations of being in the big city, and the cost of living for their emplyees it is not surprisng that they choose to build outside of the big cities. Among other things.
My cost of living inside the city (and not in a slum!) is the same or lower than it would be out in the suburbs (and by "city" I mean a walkable neighborhood with single-family houses on smallish lots, not a tiny condo in a high-rise -- that would be even cheaper).
Of the "extra costs" you mentioned, only "stricter regulations" is valid.
Personally I would rather work at a manicured campus out in the suburbs rather then anywhere near the crazy traffic of the cities.
On the contrary, slums are bad locations by definition. This means that your father's friend's city-core house was not, in fact, in a slum.
For example: This house is in a slum. This house is not in a slum. The houses are similar in age and style, but the latter house is probably worth [much] more than $250K, while the former is probably worth less than $25K. (They're also only 2 or 3 miles apart and about the same distance from downtown, but the former is literally "on the wrong side of the tracks.")
Yeah, that'll be a big attraction to hirees. "Come work at Google, in the armpit of Northern California. I love the smell of aged garbage in the morning."
At $3000/month for a shack, all of Silicon Valley is the armpit of Northern California!
They also have a core and near-suburbs that are much safer (and naturally higher cost) which is where the truly affluent (or perhaps single/childless) live, while the rest endure the commute in favor of the extra space they can afford in the far suburbs.
Except that the assholes running companies like Google have fucked it up for everyone by building their offices out in the suburbs, forcing even the affluent core/inner-suburb dwellers to waste their lives commuting out (or across, or whatever).
If the business are located in the city, then urban employees don't have to commute and all suburban employees commute to the same place. This means the transit/freeway infrastructure can be a star topology.
If businesses are distributed* around all the suburbs, then urban employees have to start commuting and suburban employees (most of which live in a different suburb than their job) commute every which way, including across town. This means that not only does the total traffic increase, but the transit/freeway infrastructure has to either be a mesh topology (at much higher cost), or becomes much less efficient (increasing commute times for everyone, which is just another kind of higher cost).
(*This is true by definition: if all businesses located in the same suburb, it would be the city!)
Railways (including underground and light rail) are more effective at moving large numbers of people but have very high fixed infrastructure costs (a mile of railway costs many times more per annum to maintain than a mile of road), meaning they inevitably require large taxpayer subsidies.
That's a red herring. First, the proper point of comparison would be cost per mile per year per capacity. Second, roads get an even bigger taxpayer subsidy than rails do!
Worse still, because of the "peaky" nature of commuter traffic, you have to spec your mass-transit systems to handle the peaks and accept that they'll be pulling around mostly fresh air for at least 18 hours every day.
So, Google decided to do something about traffic. Instead of having dozens of cars on the roads, spewing greenhouse gasses and burning foreign oil, they decide to do the "green" thing and provide buses, and they are condemned for it?! Are these buses running off of fuel made from baby seals?
Bullshit. The "green" thing would have been to put the office in a high-density area where the rail transit ALREADY FUCKING GOES!
I would rather the campus be located away from urban area.
That's not possible, unless you build an entire "company town" in the middle of nowhere (and then good luck trying to convince upper-middle-class employees, who generally want amenities, to move to it!). Otherwise, the sprawl will follow you until the place where you've built the office is just as fucked up as the urban area you were trying to escape in the first place.
Last time I checked there is no law against "American" car companies building plants in "right to work" states. In fact they have.
Although that's theoretically true, in practice American car company factories are apparently unionized even in right-to-work states. For example, the ones near where I live -- the Ford assembly plant in Hapeville, GA and the GM assembly plant in Chamblee, GA (both of which are closed now, perhaps not coincidentally) -- were union shops despite being in Georgia.
It's only a guess, but I suspect American car factories in right-to-work states ended up unionized because the workers in the other factories in union states forced them to be. (E.g. maybe Ford received the ultimatum that if the one Georgia factory became non-union then N Michigan factories would all go on strike, or something.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well that is stupid, then... if they're going to use a "photograph of the UK as seen from space" projection, then they ought to set the point of view directly above the centroid of the country (or indeed, the centroid of the relevant area, in the zoomed-in cases).
What do you mean, "rush the construction of replacement panels?" The issue is rescuing the astronauts; the orbiter is expendable at that point!
Yeah, I remembered that after I posted. However, they had poor performance and were really expensive, so I'm going to pretend they didn't count.
It did back then too, if you wanted a Pentium.
And if you don't own what you don't own (including the commons) then the system can be described as socialist.
There are people who fail to recognize the existence of the commons, but they are fools.
"Authoritarian," "statist" or "totalitarian" might be the word you're looking for. (Not "socialist," or "liberal" though, as those are not mutually exclusive with libertarian -- see the Green Party as an example.)
I like that analogy! The only quibble I have is that, as far as I know, vampires can't get a warrant.
If you know of EIT-level transportation engineer jobs in Atlanta, I'm all ears. I couldn't find one, so now I'm working as a software developer instead. (Of course, the developer job pays 50% more than the engineering job I was laid off from, so it'd take a lot to convince me to switch back at this point.)
Only in the sense that the snow caused everybody to panic and leave at the same time. The congestion happened before the roads had more than a bare dusting of snow.
Even a 1.5 mile trip probably involves a collector road (if not a minor arterial). If you're in the suburbs, said collector (or arterial) is probably the only way to get there, since there isn't a small-block-size street grid. The bottlenecks are minor in normal circumstances only because all your neighbors are not trying to use that collector all at once.
I apologize; I assumed you were capable of comprehending and following a conversation. Clearly, I was mistaken. Let me recap for you:
You were responding to a thread about "white flight." You denied that it was about racism, and instead asserted it was about crime. I directly refuted your assertion by pointing out that white flight occurred even without crime. You then accused me of failing to make a point and introduced a non-sequitur about "government mandate," which is rhetorically equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Has that alleviated your confusion, or do I need to use smaller words?
No reason; usage is fine. I just wasn't thinking, I guess.
Actually, my city experimented with that the other day. This was the result (look at the video between noon and 2 PM).
(The capacity of residential streets in front of people's houses is irrelevant; the capacity of bottlenecks is what's important.)
LOL! Oh man, that is hilarious! Why, you might ask?
Because I do, in fact, live in Atlanta (in one of the neighborhoods between downtown and Decatur... I don't want to get too specific on the Internet, of course). The mortgage for my ~1500 ft^2, 3-bedroom house is about $700/month (and that's without paying much of a down payment either, although I got some down-payment assistance from the Atlanta Development Authority). Admittedly, I could probably rent it out for $1400/month if I spent some money on granite counters and whatnot...
My neighborhood is also nice and probably has more amenities than yours (a commercial district including quite a few interesting restaurants, a bunch of events/festivals throughout the year, a park, a library, etc.). I also see green when I look out the window: both the plants in my yard and the soon-to-be-park across the street.
The apartment I used to live in, northwest of Georgia Tech in the Underwood Hills neighborhood, was also in a nice area, 2 bedrooms, pretty decent, and $800/month. I'm a little sad that they didn't open the food truck park on Howell Mill Road until after I moved...
In both locations, the traffic is not nearly as bad as (for example) Cobb Parkway, Tara Blvd, Roswell Road, or other large arterials outside the perimeter (let alone 285 itself!). Admittedly, my apartment location was better on traffic than my house location is because it was north of the Downtown Connector, but that's not that big a deal. At any rate, I can get to my job out by Sugarloaf Mills about as fast from my house in-town (30 miles away) than I could from my parents' house in Gwinnett (10 miles away) because the traffic on Sugarloaf Parkway sucks that bad.
(By the way: the slum I was thinking of in my previous post was English Avenue/Vine City. The damn place is surrounded by downtown, Georgia Tech and the Beltline, yet it somehow persists in being a shithole. I don't know how it manages to stay so bad for so long, but I'm keeping a close watch so that I can hopefully invest in it when it starts to gentrify.)
Conversely, when the crime rate isn't higher then it is racist, and "white flight" happened in low-crime areas too.
Indeed, the truth does hurt, doesn't it?
(FYI: I'm white and from Atlanta. I know what's racist.)
If this were true, the slums would get bulldozed or gentrified. Since the slums instead persist for decades, it is clearly not true.
My cost of living inside the city (and not in a slum!) is the same or lower than it would be out in the suburbs (and by "city" I mean a walkable neighborhood with single-family houses on smallish lots, not a tiny condo in a high-rise -- that would be even cheaper).
Of the "extra costs" you mentioned, only "stricter regulations" is valid.
The traffic is worse in the suburbs!
On the contrary, slums are bad locations by definition. This means that your father's friend's city-core house was not, in fact, in a slum.
For example: This house is in a slum. This house is not in a slum. The houses are similar in age and style, but the latter house is probably worth [much] more than $250K, while the former is probably worth less than $25K. (They're also only 2 or 3 miles apart and about the same distance from downtown, but the former is literally "on the wrong side of the tracks.")
At $3000/month for a shack, all of Silicon Valley is the armpit of Northern California!
If by "safe" they mean "away from black people" -- and that is what they mean! -- then yes, that does make them evil.
Which is it, "more expensive" or a "slum?" They're mutually exclusive, you know!
Except that the assholes running companies like Google have fucked it up for everyone by building their offices out in the suburbs, forcing even the affluent core/inner-suburb dwellers to waste their lives commuting out (or across, or whatever).
If the business are located in the city, then urban employees don't have to commute and all suburban employees commute to the same place. This means the transit/freeway infrastructure can be a star topology.
If businesses are distributed* around all the suburbs, then urban employees have to start commuting and suburban employees (most of which live in a different suburb than their job) commute every which way, including across town. This means that not only does the total traffic increase, but the transit/freeway infrastructure has to either be a mesh topology (at much higher cost), or becomes much less efficient (increasing commute times for everyone, which is just another kind of higher cost).
(*This is true by definition: if all businesses located in the same suburb, it would be the city!)
That's a red herring. First, the proper point of comparison would be cost per mile per year per capacity. Second, roads get an even bigger taxpayer subsidy than rails do!
This is equally true for roads.
Bullshit. The "green" thing would have been to put the office in a high-density area where the rail transit ALREADY FUCKING GOES!
That's not possible, unless you build an entire "company town" in the middle of nowhere (and then good luck trying to convince upper-middle-class employees, who generally want amenities, to move to it!). Otherwise, the sprawl will follow you until the place where you've built the office is just as fucked up as the urban area you were trying to escape in the first place.
Surely any self-respecting arcology builder would fulfill that function with crematories instead.
Although that's theoretically true, in practice American car company factories are apparently unionized even in right-to-work states. For example, the ones near where I live -- the Ford assembly plant in Hapeville, GA and the GM assembly plant in Chamblee, GA (both of which are closed now, perhaps not coincidentally) -- were union shops despite being in Georgia.
It's only a guess, but I suspect American car factories in right-to-work states ended up unionized because the workers in the other factories in union states forced them to be. (E.g. maybe Ford received the ultimatum that if the one Georgia factory became non-union then N Michigan factories would all go on strike, or something.)