By electing this President and this Congress, you red-staters have made us in New York City more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism. And still you red-state tourists come to Ground Zero and wave your fucking red-state flags while smiling and posing in front of the pit. Ever stop to wonder why even after 9/11, the Manhattan vote goes as solidly to Democrats as ever?
Fuck you. Your vote is making the world less safe.
On September 29th, this article was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic Internet site. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.
I just love what that template leaves unexplained.
And whatever corrections are made won't be updated in the link, either. With many eyes, after all, all errors are shallow--isn't that the founding principle of Wikipedia? A crush of visitors should improve the article beyond anything seen in Britannica or the New York Post.
Sorry, the facts aren't on your side. From a cursory Google search:
"By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world... The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn't matched since the mid-nineteen-twenties, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Ford Model T... New York City is more populous than all but eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank 51st in per-capita energy use."
"Tall buildings have much less exposed exterior surface per square foot of interior space than smaller buildings do, and that means they present relatively less of themselves to the elements, and their small roofs absorb less heat from the sun during cooling season and radiate less heat from inside during heating season. (The beneficial effects are greater still in Manhattan, where one building often directly abuts another.)"
"Bruce Fowle, a founder of Fox & Fowle, told me, 'The Condé Nast Building contains 1.6 million square feet of floor space, and it sits on one acre of land. If you divided it into 48 one-story suburban office buildings, each averaging 33,000 square feet, and spread those one-story buildings around the countryside, and then added parking and some green space around each one, you'd end up consuming at least a 150 acres of land. And then you'd have to provide infrastructure, the highways and everything else.' Like many other buildings in Manhattan, 4 Times Square doesn't even have a parking lot, because the vast majority of the six thousand people who work inside it don't need one."
"Thinking of freeways and strip malls as 'urban' phenomena obscures the ecologically monumental difference between Phoenix and Manhattan, and fortifies the perception that population density is an environmental ill. It also prevents most people from recognizing that R.M.I.'s famous headquarters-which sits on an isolated parcel more than a hundred and eighty miles from the nearest significant public transit system-is sprawl."
As it happens, these quotes are all picked from the article "New York Is the Greenest City in America," which I highly recommend you read.
...NYC, Chicago, DC, or Boston. If you live in subway distance in any of those spots, you are going to pay substantially more in rent, food, and perhaps taxes...
If I moved back to suburban Ohio (yes, I grew up in the Buckeye State!) I'd probably have to eat a substantial salary hit, and I'd also have to pay much more in transportation costs than I do currently—insurance, maintenance, ownership, time lost behind the wheel when I could be doing something else, all that. I'm not sure where the economic advantage lies. As you say, it's questionable.
The changes needed to make [mass transit] the dominant transportation in the US are substantial, and require substantial changes (population shifts) and costs (housing losses/costs).
I have a feeling that as all of us are made to shoulder the true cost of our energy consumption and other lifestyle habits in the not-too-distant future, we're going to see exactly those changes. Hopefully the process will be gradual enough to avoid serious pain, but ultimately, yeah, I do believe we'll see a shift from the suburbs back into the cities.
So you take a cab, or you rent a vehicle, or you pay to have it shipped. You can afford to do this because you're not sinking money into car insurance, maintenance, or the cost of buying a car in the first place. And because you live and work in a world-class commercial hub, chances are you earn more to begin with, too.
If you have severe disabilities, you'd consider yourself lucky to live within a 20-minute ambulance ride of some of the world's best hospitals with access to top talent and facilities, as you would if you lived on, say, the UWS of Manhattan. There's a reason New York City has one of the longest life expectancies of any city in the nation.
That's a good point, but don't forget that private automobile use is if anything even more subsidized than mass transit, primarily through enormous amounts of federal funding for highways and local road projects. Add to that the numerous economically-distorting incentives to sprawl—tax breaks on mortgages for single-family homes and laws requiring rural service (e.g. of telecoms and postal delivery) being the two that immediately spring to mind—and it becomes clear that rural, landowning car drivers ought to be shouldering far more of the costs of their lifestyle than they already are.
This is such a truism within the urban studies literature that nobody even bothers to mention it anymore. I'll work on references, will post back tomorrow.
C'mon. Have some respect for yourself, and for everyone else on this forum. Don't cite Wikipedia as if it were any more reliable than the bathroom wall.
What extra freedom? If you'd chosen to live somewhere that had been built around public transit, you wouldn't need to go off the map to begin with.
Personally, I prefer to be free from the hassles of car ownership and maintenance. I do enjoy driving—but on the open road, not through traffic every day to work. Leave that kind of driving to the experts. I'm happy to sit and get some work done, read the newspaper, or just do the crossword.
That's fair, and completely understandable--but if I were consuming a premium of energy to sustain my rural lifestyle, I wouldn't complain about having to pay for all that extra energy. Some people may well find they prefer to live wastefully, but I often wish they'd understand these choices come at a price.
It's called a MetroCard. Plenty faster, more energy-efficient, and more convenient than a car, and it only costs $76 a month. And you can actually do stuff on your way to work, like read. Try that next time you're stuck in traffic on the so-called "freeway."
China is a democracy, too, even if only senior Party members can vote. Same thing in Soviet Russia. Zimbabwe is a democracy where the only vote that counts is Robert Mugabe's, and the DPRK's electorate consists of Kim Jong-Il.
Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning?;-)
Huh. I just found the article's second and third nominations for deletion. It does indeed look like Wikipedia's removed it permanently--you can't even recreate the article--purely out of spite. And my inclination to contribute to Wikipedia dwindles even further.
None of those reasons seems to stand up to scrutiny. Maybe when those comments were written in 2004, but not anymore. If Wikipedia's still keeping the article off the site, it would have to seem out of pure pettiness (as others have stated in this thread).
Y'know, London managed the transition just fine, by adding bus routes and increasing service at the same time they introduced the congestion charge a few years back. There's nothing stopping the regional transit authority from working with private operators (as happens here in NYC) to provide a good level of service.
But as others have stated in this thread, the vast majority of people don't upgrade their systems piecemeal, either. Not only Apple, but Dell, HP, and Gateway offer complete systems as well.
I'll leave it to others to bite the hostility sure to follow from you.
Look, I'll state it as simply as possible. Apple gives people what they want: a simple, clean, all-in-one Internet appliance. You, on the other hand, seem to advocate foisting a mess of hardware upon the majority of people who would rather have aforementioned all-in-one appliance.
Apple respects people's wishes, while you shovel your ego at them, proudly declaring "Believe me, this where you want to go today!" That makes you the fartsniffer, fartsniffer.
Slashdot Mirror
By electing this President and this Congress, you red-staters have made us in New York City more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism. And still you red-state tourists come to Ground Zero and wave your fucking red-state flags while smiling and posing in front of the pit. Ever stop to wonder why even after 9/11, the Manhattan vote goes as solidly to Democrats as ever?
Fuck you. Your vote is making the world less safe.
In urban planning and economics, this is called location theory. See, for instance, "The Geography of Entrepreneurship in the New York Metropolitan Area," published last year in the Economic Policy Review, which describes one such model as you describe. (Warning, PDF with 3.4 MB of cool maps.)
And whatever corrections are made won't be updated in the link, either. With many eyes, after all, all errors are shallow--isn't that the founding principle of Wikipedia? A crush of visitors should improve the article beyond anything seen in Britannica or the New York Post.
Wait, what?
Hey, welcome to the Mac and all that, but the first thing you have to learn is to stop calling it "MAC." People will mistake you for a PC user.
Sorry, the facts aren't on your side. From a cursory Google search:
"By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world... The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn't matched since the mid-nineteen-twenties, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Ford Model T... New York City is more populous than all but eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank 51st in per-capita energy use."
"Tall buildings have much less exposed exterior surface per square foot of interior space than smaller buildings do, and that means they present relatively less of themselves to the elements, and their small roofs absorb less heat from the sun during cooling season and radiate less heat from inside during heating season. (The beneficial effects are greater still in Manhattan, where one building often directly abuts another.)"
"Bruce Fowle, a founder of Fox & Fowle, told me, 'The Condé Nast Building contains 1.6 million square feet of floor space, and it sits on one acre of land. If you divided it into 48 one-story suburban office buildings, each averaging 33,000 square feet, and spread those one-story buildings around the countryside, and then added parking and some green space around each one, you'd end up consuming at least a 150 acres of land. And then you'd have to provide infrastructure, the highways and everything else.' Like many other buildings in Manhattan, 4 Times Square doesn't even have a parking lot, because the vast majority of the six thousand people who work inside it don't need one."
"Thinking of freeways and strip malls as 'urban' phenomena obscures the ecologically monumental difference between Phoenix and Manhattan, and fortifies the perception that population density is an environmental ill. It also prevents most people from recognizing that R.M.I.'s famous headquarters-which sits on an isolated parcel more than a hundred and eighty miles from the nearest significant public transit system-is sprawl."
As it happens, these quotes are all picked from the article "New York Is the Greenest City in America," which I highly recommend you read.
I have a feeling that as all of us are made to shoulder the true cost of our energy consumption and other lifestyle habits in the not-too-distant future, we're going to see exactly those changes. Hopefully the process will be gradual enough to avoid serious pain, but ultimately, yeah, I do believe we'll see a shift from the suburbs back into the cities.
So you take a cab, or you rent a vehicle, or you pay to have it shipped. You can afford to do this because you're not sinking money into car insurance, maintenance, or the cost of buying a car in the first place. And because you live and work in a world-class commercial hub, chances are you earn more to begin with, too.
If you have severe disabilities, you'd consider yourself lucky to live within a 20-minute ambulance ride of some of the world's best hospitals with access to top talent and facilities, as you would if you lived on, say, the UWS of Manhattan. There's a reason New York City has one of the longest life expectancies of any city in the nation.
That's a good point, but don't forget that private automobile use is if anything even more subsidized than mass transit, primarily through enormous amounts of federal funding for highways and local road projects. Add to that the numerous economically-distorting incentives to sprawl—tax breaks on mortgages for single-family homes and laws requiring rural service (e.g. of telecoms and postal delivery) being the two that immediately spring to mind—and it becomes clear that rural, landowning car drivers ought to be shouldering far more of the costs of their lifestyle than they already are.
This is such a truism within the urban studies literature that nobody even bothers to mention it anymore. I'll work on references, will post back tomorrow.
C'mon. Have some respect for yourself, and for everyone else on this forum. Don't cite Wikipedia as if it were any more reliable than the bathroom wall.
Sure, if "shallow" means "interested in different things than me."
What extra freedom? If you'd chosen to live somewhere that had been built around public transit, you wouldn't need to go off the map to begin with.
Personally, I prefer to be free from the hassles of car ownership and maintenance. I do enjoy driving—but on the open road, not through traffic every day to work. Leave that kind of driving to the experts. I'm happy to sit and get some work done, read the newspaper, or just do the crossword.
That's fair, and completely understandable--but if I were consuming a premium of energy to sustain my rural lifestyle, I wouldn't complain about having to pay for all that extra energy. Some people may well find they prefer to live wastefully, but I often wish they'd understand these choices come at a price.
It's called a MetroCard. Plenty faster, more energy-efficient, and more convenient than a car, and it only costs $76 a month. And you can actually do stuff on your way to work, like read. Try that next time you're stuck in traffic on the so-called "freeway."
It's because the Mac was designed by artists, for artists. They all speak the same language. Duh.
Oh, right, I linked there because this is what became of Limecat.
Now I won't have to keep sneezing because of my fashionable homemade bag.
China is a democracy, too, even if only senior Party members can vote. Same thing in Soviet Russia. Zimbabwe is a democracy where the only vote that counts is Robert Mugabe's, and the DPRK's electorate consists of Kim Jong-Il.
;-)
Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning?
Huh. I just found the article's second and third nominations for deletion. It does indeed look like Wikipedia's removed it permanently--you can't even recreate the article--purely out of spite. And my inclination to contribute to Wikipedia dwindles even further.
None of those reasons seems to stand up to scrutiny. Maybe when those comments were written in 2004, but not anymore. If Wikipedia's still keeping the article off the site, it would have to seem out of pure pettiness (as others have stated in this thread).
...for buying an IBM ThinkPad, notorious for their unreliability. Perhaps he should have considered an Apple or Dell instead.
Y'know, London managed the transition just fine, by adding bus routes and increasing service at the same time they introduced the congestion charge a few years back. There's nothing stopping the regional transit authority from working with private operators (as happens here in NYC) to provide a good level of service.
But as others have stated in this thread, the vast majority of people don't upgrade their systems piecemeal, either. Not only Apple, but Dell, HP, and Gateway offer complete systems as well.
I'll leave it to others to bite the hostility sure to follow from you.
Look, I'll state it as simply as possible. Apple gives people what they want: a simple, clean, all-in-one Internet appliance. You, on the other hand, seem to advocate foisting a mess of hardware upon the majority of people who would rather have aforementioned all-in-one appliance.
Apple respects people's wishes, while you shovel your ego at them, proudly declaring "Believe me, this where you want to go today!" That makes you the fartsniffer, fartsniffer.