The city of New York owns a huge secion of land in the Catskills Mountains that it uses to impound rainwater for its acqueduct system. You could put all of humanity into a city like New York but sized like Texas, but they would still depend on the resources of a much larger land area for their existence.
As an immigrant to the United States, I can assure you that the US does NOT have a monopoly on teh crazy.
Or even a majority market share.
Which is not to say that this is in any way to be dismissed. Crazy people in high office can do a great deal of damage. But it should be viewed in perspective.
Dude, try it some time. Walk down a street in Amsterdam, Paris, Bruges, Prague, any village in Greece. It happens to be so pleasant people fly across the world to do it.
Easy way to do that: remove a lane of traffic. It's what we're doing in Massachusetts in a lot of places now. Leaves more room for sidewalks, and gives you tight setbacks to get drivers to slow down.
Holland uses these methods. And bikers are far safer in Holland.
It is far safer to share a road with cars passign you at 25MPH than cars passing you at 50MPH. It is far safer to ride on a road where a drunk driver will crash into a tree than one where he can weave and drift and drift until he plants your ass on his windshield.
Try it yourself. Ride your bike on a suburban arterial road. Then ride your bike on the streets around Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"It is my experience that congested roadways are considerably more dangerous than ones with free flowing traffic,"
More dangerous for you, maybe (probably not), but less dangerous to the people you share the road with. The slower you go, the less danger you pose to other drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists, homes, et cetera.
It makes the city look intimidating to drivers, but a lot less intimidating to people walking on the sidewalk. It is way more pleasant to walk along a road when people are driving 25MPH and not 50MPH.
"Cars today have more horsepower, more traction, better safety, and more braking power than cars 20-30 years ago.. Yet, our speed limits have decreased.. Why?"
Better safety for the driver. Less safety for pedestrians, motorcyclists, and often other drivers. So slow the hell down.
No, what this means is that instead of letting you pile up huge amounts of mine tailings in the hollows of the Appalachians, and poison the drinking water of the powerless hillbillies downstream with heavy metals, we're going to force you not to inflict these costs on other people, and to pay for what costs we do let you inflict.
Meat and "bush meat" are two different things. It's one thing to eat vegetarian animals. You have to be lacking other options to eat a carnivore. And if you eat a carnivorous primate, that's potential for serious trouble. People in Africa have eaten chimps since time immemorial. Generally, when nothing better was available, because eating them is a Bad Idea.
When Africans eat apes, bad things happen. Somewhere in Africa, some time in the 1970's, some villagers suffered some sort of crop failure or other cause of food shortage, and resorted to eating "bush meat," i.e. chimps.
I don't have to explain why it collapsed in 8.6 seconds. Unlike you morons, I looked at the video clips and know that IT DID NOT COLLAPSE AT 8.6 SECONDS.
I looked at the seismo records. I listened to the audio. It took 20 seconds for the collapse to complete.
Christ on a fucking crutch. Go to Youtube and see for yourself.
Next question: the 46 second claim assumes the collapse should have 1. happened one floor at a time, and 2. shed all momentum at each floor.
Both claims are utter bullshit. The impact from the top segment falling on the bottom segment was perfectly capable of of being transferred much further down at the speed of sound through steel. When each impact at the can pop the rivets 4 or more floors down, it will not happen one floor one floor at a time. Secondly, why the hell would the top segment lose all momentum at each impact?
Neither link explains WHY the progressive collapse should have taken 26 seconds, or 46 seconds. All they do is assert that it should have taken however long they think they should have taken.
Again: why do you think progressive collapse should have taken 46 seconds?
Shall I pre-empt you when you point at that link? The guy says this: "The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds." And he gives NO REASON why it should be so. And neither do you.
Slashdot Mirror
The city of New York owns a huge secion of land in the Catskills Mountains that it uses to impound rainwater for its acqueduct system. You could put all of humanity into a city like New York but sized like Texas, but they would still depend on the resources of a much larger land area for their existence.
As an immigrant to the United States, I can assure you that the US does NOT have a monopoly on teh crazy.
Or even a majority market share.
Which is not to say that this is in any way to be dismissed. Crazy people in high office can do a great deal of damage.
But it should be viewed in perspective.
Well, if you are, then narrowing the road will be no problem for you.
Dude, try it some time. Walk down a street in Amsterdam, Paris, Bruges, Prague, any village in Greece. It happens to be so pleasant people fly across the world to do it.
Easy way to do that: remove a lane of traffic. It's what we're doing in Massachusetts in a lot of places now. Leaves more room for sidewalks, and gives you tight setbacks to get drivers to slow down.
Because the speed you want to drive in is not the speed I want people driving in front of my house, or around my children.
Holland uses these methods. And bikers are far safer in Holland.
It is far safer to share a road with cars passign you at 25MPH than cars passing you at 50MPH.
It is far safer to ride on a road where a drunk driver will crash into a tree than one where he can weave and drift and drift until he plants your ass on his windshield.
Try it yourself. Ride your bike on a suburban arterial road. Then ride your bike on the streets around Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"Keep the pedestrians and cyclists as far away as possible from the cars."
Okay. Step 1: parking lanes along every road. You can't jump the curb onto the sidewalk if there's a line of cars in the way.
Step 2: bike lanes along the sidewalks.
Step 3. Trees everywhere. Can't drive on the sidewalk if a tree's in the way.
Result: a road that is less forgiving of bad drivers, where average speeds are lower, and everyone is safer.
You don't need a license to ride on transit. How is that "easier to control"?
"Around here, 40% of the gas tax goes to pay for mass transit 300 miles away."
And your local streets and roads are paved and resurfaced using money from the property and sales taxes.
The average in the United States is that gas taxes pay for 20% of total road spending (state, federal and local)
"It is my experience that congested roadways are considerably more dangerous than ones with free flowing traffic,"
More dangerous for you, maybe (probably not), but less dangerous to the people you share the road with. The slower you go, the less danger you pose to other drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists, homes, et cetera.
It makes the city look intimidating to drivers, but a lot less intimidating to people walking on the sidewalk. It is way more pleasant to walk along a road when people are driving 25MPH and not 50MPH.
"Cars today have more horsepower, more traction, better safety, and more braking power than cars 20-30 years ago.. Yet, our speed limits have decreased.. Why?"
Better safety for the driver. Less safety for pedestrians, motorcyclists, and often other drivers. So slow the hell down.
Yeah, right. As if tort law has done anything for the Appalachian communities already devastated by mountaintop removal.
No, what this means is that instead of letting you pile up huge amounts of mine tailings in the hollows of the Appalachians, and poison the drinking water of the powerless hillbillies downstream with heavy metals, we're going to force you not to inflict these costs on other people, and to pay for what costs we do let you inflict.
Meat and "bush meat" are two different things. It's one thing to eat vegetarian animals. You have to be lacking other options to eat a carnivore. And if you eat a carnivorous primate, that's potential for serious trouble. People in Africa have eaten chimps since time immemorial. Generally, when nothing better was available, because eating them is a Bad Idea.
Ammo's expensive when you live in East Bumfuck, Kenya and have to grow your own food.
As soon as your done having your laughs, folks, remember that it's a hell of a lot funnier when it isn't your family that's at risk of hunger.
When Africans eat apes, bad things happen. Somewhere in Africa, some time in the 1970's, some villagers suffered some sort of crop failure or other cause of food shortage, and resorted to eating "bush meat," i.e. chimps.
The result was AIDS.
You claimed progressive collapse would take 46 seconds. How do you defend that stupid claim?
I don't have to explain why it collapsed in 8.6 seconds. Unlike you morons, I looked at the video clips and know that IT DID NOT COLLAPSE AT 8.6 SECONDS.
I looked at the seismo records. I listened to the audio. It took 20 seconds for the collapse to complete.
Christ on a fucking crutch. Go to Youtube and see for yourself.
Well, if you've read it and understood it, you could quote it and save my computer the RAM space needed to open a PPT file.
Not to mention that your link doesn't contain any link to the actial PPT file. Smooth move, there, buddy.
Again, you claim to understand this issue: why would a progressive collapse go floor by floor? Answer the question.
Much better.
Next question: the 46 second claim assumes the collapse should have 1. happened one floor at a time, and 2. shed all momentum at each floor.
Both claims are utter bullshit. The impact from the top segment falling on the bottom segment was perfectly capable of of being transferred much further down at the speed of sound through steel. When each impact at the can pop the rivets 4 or more floors down, it will not happen one floor one floor at a time. Secondly, why the hell would the top segment lose all momentum at each impact?
Neither link explains WHY the progressive collapse should have taken 26 seconds, or 46 seconds. All they do is assert that it should have taken however long they think they should have taken.
Again: why do you think progressive collapse should have taken 46 seconds?
Shall I pre-empt you when you point at that link? The guy says this: "The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds." And he gives NO REASON why it should be so. And neither do you.