Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Richard D. Latham
> In article <1njbi55tc3rcb1kgv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:55:42 -0600, lat...@verizon.net (Richard D.
>>Latham) wrote:
>>
>>>Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million.
>>>
>>>There's not really another US urban core where having a car is a
>>>hindrance.
>>
>>My daughter, who lives in Boston, would disagree.
>
> As would many inhabitants of San Francisco.
>
I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
car.
You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
Francisco and Boston ?
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com or lat...@verizon.net
Dimensional Traveler
> jo...@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>
>> In article <1njbi55tc3rcb1kgv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:55:42 -0600, lat...@verizon.net (Richard D.
>>> Latham) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million.
>>>>
>>>> There's not really another US urban core where having a car is a
>>>> hindrance.
>>> My daughter, who lives in Boston, would disagree.
>> As would many inhabitants of San Francisco.
>>
>
> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
> car.
>
> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
> Francisco and Boston ?
>
registered cars than registered drivers living in the city. (There was
a local news story about how some neighborhoods have something like five
or six cars per two-driver household with no off-street parking. Cars
blocking sidewalks, parked almost literally on top of hydrants, double
parked in the street for weeks, etc.) And that's before you add in the
commuters.
I'll also note that both SF and Manhattan are mostly or completely
surrounded by water. I'm sure that just adds to the misery.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> jo...@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>
>> In article <1njbi55tc3rcb1kgv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:55:42 -0600, lat...@verizon.net (Richard D.
>>> Latham) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million.
>>>>
>>>> There's not really another US urban core where having a car is a
>>>> hindrance.
>>> My daughter, who lives in Boston, would disagree.
>> As would many inhabitants of San Francisco.
>>
>
> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
> car.
>
> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
> Francisco and Boston ?
>
Brookline? Or only Boston core, the "City of Boston". Cars are common in
Somerville and Brookline.
Charles
Hatunen
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Richard D. Latham wrote:
>> jo...@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>>
>>> In article <1njbi55tc3rcb1kgv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:55:42 -0600, lat...@verizon.net (Richard D.
>>>> Latham) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's not really another US urban core where having a car is a
>>>>> hindrance.
>>>> My daughter, who lives in Boston, would disagree.
>>> As would many inhabitants of San Francisco.
>>>
>>
>> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
>> car.
>>
>> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
>> Francisco and Boston ?
>>
>One of the issues in San Francisco is that there are significantly more
>registered cars than registered drivers living in the city. (There was
>a local news story about how some neighborhoods have something like five
>or six cars per two-driver household with no off-street parking. Cars
>blocking sidewalks, parked almost literally on top of hydrants, double
>parked in the street for weeks, etc.) And that's before you add in the
>commuters.
The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
certain hours.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Don Freeman
ObNit: Non-residents can park in the residential parking restricted
areas, but it is for a limited time such as would not be practical for
commuters.
--
-Don
Wayne Throop
: The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
: and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
: certain hours.
The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
the genre is ghettoized. With that kind of attitude towards casual,
not-yet-committed readers, what could be expected? What's the email
address of the president of science fiction so I can complain about it?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Don Freeman
> : Hatunen <hat...@cox.net>
> : The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
> : and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
> : certain hours.
>
> The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
> the genre is ghettoized. With that kind of attitude towards casual,
> not-yet-committed readers, what could be expected? What's the email
> address of the president of science fiction so I can complain about it?
>
Most excellent.
--
-Don
Hatunen
Throop) wrote:
>: Hatunen <hat...@cox.net>
>: The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>: and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>: certain hours.
>
>The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
>the genre is ghettoized.
WTF does that mean?
>With that kind of attitude towards casual,
>not-yet-committed readers, what could be expected?
And that?
>What's the email
>address of the president of science fiction so I can complain about it?
You lopped off the post I was responding to:
>One of the issues in San Francisco is that there are significantly more
>registered cars than registered drivers living in the city. (There was
>a local news story about how some neighborhoods have something like five
>or six cars per two-driver household with no off-street parking. Cars
>blocking sidewalks, parked almost literally on top of hydrants, double
>parked in the street for weeks, etc.) And that's before you add in the
>commuters.
Context is everything.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:34:03 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
> Throop) wrote:
>
>> : Hatunen <hat...@cox.net>
>> : The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>> : and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>> : certain hours.
>>
>> The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
>> the genre is ghettoized.
>
> WTF does that mean?
He is making a funny. It is called a "joke". You may notice that the
common abbreviation for "Science Fiction" or "Speculative Fiction" is
the same as the one for "San Francisco", and as you used the
abbreviation, he decided to take advantage of the ambiguity.
Perhaps you should study this phenomenon called "humor".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>: Hatunen <hat...@cox.net>
>: The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>: and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>: certain hours.
>
>The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
>the genre is ghettoized. With that kind of attitude towards casual,
>not-yet-committed readers, what could be expected? What's the email
>address of the president of science fiction so I can complain about it?
That's *speculative* fiction, you f***ing fascist pig.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Hatunen
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:34:03 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>> Throop) wrote:
>>
>>> : Hatunen <hat...@cox.net>
>>> : The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>>> : and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>>> : certain hours.
>>>
>>> The metaphorical "commuters" don't matter. And people wonder why
>>> the genre is ghettoized.
>>
>> WTF does that mean?
>
> He is making a funny. It is called a "joke". You may notice that the
>common abbreviation for "Science Fiction" or "Speculative Fiction" is
>the same as the one for "San Francisco", and as you used the
>abbreviation, he decided to take advantage of the ambiguity.
Good grief.
> Perhaps you should study this phenomenon called "humor".
It may be time to lay out a few AFU in-jokes.
Wayne Throop
To be fair, I did incautiously omit the smileys. Or perhaps it would
have helped if it had started with "what's all this I hear about" and
ended with "nevermind", but it didn't really fit as a classic litellism,
since the conflation isn't hearing-related, quite. Plus, who knows how
many folks watch early SNL sketches these days.
As for the "president" reference, in addition to a weak Peewee
tie-in (to "the King of Cartoons"), see also
Also ties in with the discussion a while back about the nature of humor,
as in "can there be a joke if nobody slips on a banana peel and takes
a tumble"; this constitutes an argument for both sides, since at first
it seems it's a "pure wordplay" joke, but involves me slipping on the
metaphorical banana peel of mistaking "SF" against so much contextual
disambiguation. Which in fact I did do upon first glance (reading via
sf.written as I do), and spent a split second or two trying to figure
out what science fiction had to do with parking. This seemed a better
alternative to just posting "hey, I took that as "science fiction"
for a moment there, haha".
Hm. You know, it's not nearly as fun when it's explained.
Perhaps I shouldn't have commented further. So... "nevermind".
Just goes to show you that obeying the BOA is a good idea.
Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
nice young men in their clean white coats
--- from Dr Demento
(not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
Bill Snyder
wrote:
> Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
> nice young men in their clean white coats
> --- from Dr Demento
> (not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
Didn't Napoleon XIV predate Dr Demento by a few years?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
> Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
> nice young men in their clean white coats
> --- from Dr Demento
> (not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
"They're Coming to Take Me Away" was written and recorded by Napoleon
XIV, and was a hit on mainstream radio in its day, well before Dr.
Demento.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Wayne Throop
: Didn't Napoleon XIV predate Dr Demento by a few years?
I expect so. Perhaps I ought to have said "via" instead of "from".
Wayne Throop
: "They're Coming to Take Me Away" was written and recorded by Napoleon
: XIV, and was a hit on mainstream radio in its day, well before Dr.
: Demento.
Yeah, OK, but "Napoleon XIV" isn't as easy to confuse
with Professor Dementor.
Tim McDaniel
wrote:
>: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
>: He is making a funny. It is called a "joke".
>
>To be fair, I did incautiously omit the smileys.
Welcome to alt.folklore.urban. "Don't smiley when you say that, boy"
ought to be a motto, except the motto competition has been closed for
years.
That premised: I didn't get the joke either until the "SF" ambiguity
was pointed out in another article. Sorry.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <12609...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org>
> wrote:
>> : "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
>> : He is making a funny. It is called a "joke".
>>
>> To be fair, I did incautiously omit the smileys.
>
> Welcome to alt.folklore.urban. "Don't smiley when you say that, boy"
> ought to be a motto, except the motto competition has been closed for
> years.
I thought the motto was to be a .GIF! GIF! of Vicki Robinson with Craig
Shergold.
:)
Don Freeman
> This seemed a better alternative to just posting "hey, I took that as
> "science fiction" for a moment there, haha".
>
Having lived and/or worked in San Francisco for nearly 30 years, I can
understand how it can be confused with Science Fiction.
--
-Don
Mac
> Richard D. Latham wrote:
> > jo...@panix.com (John Francis) writes:
>
> >> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:55:42 -0600, lath...@verizon.net (Richard D.
> >>> Latham) wrote:
>
> >>>> Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million.
>
> >>>> There's not really another US urban core where having a car is a
> >>>> hindrance.
> >>> My daughter, who lives in Boston, would disagree.
> >> As would many inhabitants of San Francisco.
>
> > I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
> > car.
>
> > You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
> > Francisco and Boston ?
>
> Define Boston. Does it include Cambridge? Does it include Somerville?
> Brookline? Or only Boston core, the "City of Boston". Cars are common in
> Somerville and Brookline
...and Boston includes stuff like West Roxbury, and some of the "good"
part of Jamaica Plain, car-dependent as any suburb.
Anthony "Recovering Cantab" McCafferty
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Hatunen
Tales of the City isn't Sci fi. Fantasy, maybe...
Lizz Holmans
I did. I guess I win.
Lizz 'second prize is *two* weeks in rec.arts.sf.written' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/show/826793-cricket-she-wrote
Louann Miller
news:7hsoyk...@verizon.net:
> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
> car.
>
> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
> Francisco and Boston ?
Purely in the interest of making trouble:
Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages (transport
goods along with you, go exactly to your destination on exactly your own
schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
if their preferred method of public transportation is 'Taxi'?
Louann "at least I don't need a chauffeur" Miller
R H Draney
>
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:34:22 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>> Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
>> nice young men in their clean white coats
>> --- from Dr Demento
>> (not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
>
>Didn't Napoleon XIV predate Dr Demento by a few years?
Barret Hansen - b. 2 Apr 1941
Jerry Samuels - b. 3 May 1938
So, yes....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Keith F. Lynch
> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
> (transport goods along with you,
You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
and trains can read or do what they will.
> relative privacy and security)
Security against what? Per passenger mile, cars are by far the most
dangerous form of transportation (except motorcycles).
> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
> transportation is 'Taxi'?
Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> To be fair, I did incautiously omit the smileys. ....
> Just goes to show you that obeying the BOA is a good idea.
And that obeying the ban on smileys is a bad one.
Keith F. Lynch
> Hatunen wrote:
>> The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>> and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>> certain hours.
> ObNit: Non-residents can park in the residential parking restricted
> areas, but it is for a limited time such as would not be practical
> for commuters.
How is that a nit? You're saying the same thing as Hatunen.
I wonder how people on the peninsula can have visitors who arrive
by car. They can only visit during certain hours?
David Scheidt
:lat...@verizon.net (Richard D. Latham) wrote in
:news:7hsoyk...@verizon.net:
:> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
:> car.
:>
:> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
:> Francisco and Boston ?
:Purely in the interest of making trouble:
:Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages (transport
:goods along with you, go exactly to your destination on exactly your own
:schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
horrendous safety record.
:if their preferred method of public transportation is 'Taxi'?
Taxis certainly make sense. For instance, you don't have to store the
taxi when your not using it. You don't have to park it wehn you get
to where youre going.
--
sig 11
Hatunen
wrote:
>Bill Snyder filted:
>>
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:34:22 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
>>> nice young men in their clean white coats
>>> --- from Dr Demento
>>> (not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
>>
>>Didn't Napoleon XIV predate Dr Demento by a few years?
>
> Barret Hansen - b. 2 Apr 1941
> Jerry Samuels - b. 3 May 1938
>
>So, yes....r
Maybe.
He didn't ask if Samuels predated Hansen or vise versa. He asked
it Napoleon XIV predated Dr Demento.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>>> and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>>> certain hours.
>
>> ObNit: Non-residents can park in the residential parking restricted
>> areas, but it is for a limited time such as would not be practical
>> for commuters.
>
>How is that a nit? You're saying the same thing as Hatunen.
You apparently don't read for comprehension. And I thank Don for
pointing out the discrepancy in what I posted. I left The Bay
Area almost ten years ago and forgot the details. And if I recall
correctly outsiders can park as desired evenings. If they can
find a legal space, which is unlikely.
>I wonder how people on the peninsula can have visitors who arrive
>by car. They can only visit during certain hours?
You do understand that SF (San Francisco) is not synonymus with
The Peninsula, I hope. There's lots of neighborhood parking in
Daly City and Pacifica, both towns where I lived. There is lots
of residential neighborhood parking all the way down the
Peninsula. Of course, it's mostly single family dwellings and
they all have garages and don't need to park in the street.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>> (transport goods along with you,
>
>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>
>True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
>and trains can read or do what they will.
>
>> relative privacy and security)
>
>Security against what? Per passenger mile, cars are by far the most
>dangerous form of transportation (except motorcycles).
>
>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
>
>Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
If you don't have the expense of car ownership, you have the
money for taxis.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
> If you don't have the expense of car ownership, you have the
> money for taxis.
I know car ownership is expensive, what with fuel, maintenance,
insurance, registration, repairs, tolls, taxes, parking, etc.,
and of course the car itself, but if it really costs more than
taking all the trips you would have taken in your own car by taxi
instead, why does *anyone* have a car?
John F. Eldredge
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:45:08 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>>> (transport goods along with you,
>>
>>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>>
>>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>>
>>True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses and
>>trains can read or do what they will.
>>
>>> relative privacy and security)
>>
>>Security against what? Per passenger mile, cars are by far the most
>>dangerous form of transportation (except motorcycles).
>>
>>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
>>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
>>
>>Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
>
> If you don't have the expense of car ownership, you have the money for
> taxis.
If you are having to use taxis on a daily basis, you will likely be
spending far more money than you would be spending if you drove your own
car. I used to live six miles from work; on the few occasions that I had
to take a taxi to work, that six-mile ride cost me about $25.00 one way
(I was able to persuade a co-worker to give me a ride back home).
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Hatunen
It might be well to point out that in San Francisco your parking
place or garage might be two blocks away. When I first got my
consulting job in San Francisco in 1985 my agency paid for my
wife and I to live in a hotel for up to a month. Parking was two
blocks up Sutter St from the hotel and cost us $17/day (which my
agency paid). Once we discovered the Metro, BART and the cable
cars we sometimes simply left the car in the garage much of the
time (back then you could still use the cable cars as local
transit rather than an E-ticket ride, so I walked up to
California St each morning and took the cable car to my office at
1 California St).
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
>
>> If you don't have the expense of car ownership, you have the
>> money for taxis.
>
>I know car ownership is expensive, what with fuel, maintenance,
>insurance, registration, repairs, tolls, taxes, parking, etc.,
>and of course the car itself, but if it really costs more than
>taking all the trips you would have taken in your own car by taxi
>instead, why does *anyone* have a car?
For all the reasons others have cited. Depending on where one
lives, one might consider it worth the cost. When I had my first
car I was in my late teens. I had a job with the local General
Motors division and commuted from my home about four miles across
town. One day I figured out how much the car was actually costing
me and gave serious thought to dumping it. But if I couldn't get
out in the country to lonely roads, then where would I have made
out with girls?
Wayne Throop
: I know car ownership is expensive, what with fuel, maintenance,
: insurance, registration, repairs, tolls, taxes, parking, etc.,
: and of course the car itself, but if it really costs more than
: taking all the trips you would have taken in your own car by taxi
: instead, why does *anyone* have a car?
If you can throw out your garbage, why would *anyone* buy and
use a garbage disposal? If you can cook all your meals on
a stovetop, why would anybody buy and use an oven, or even
worse, a microwave?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
A STOVE? Why're you using that stupidly complex and expensive
invention, when wood's lying around for the taking and you can have a
fire just anywhere, instead of having to be in your home, using this
limited set of burners?
David DeLaney
>Tim McDaniel wrote:
>> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>> To be fair, I did incautiously omit the smileys.
>>
>> Welcome to alt.folklore.urban. "Don't smiley when you say that, boy"
>> ought to be a motto, except the motto competition has been closed for years.
>
> I thought the motto was to be a .GIF! GIF! of Vicki Robinson with Craig
>Shergold.
I've had a compressed one in my .sig for years.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>> (transport goods along with you,
>
>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
If you aren't the owner/purchaser of said form, and if it isn't at least
as large as a car, transporting goods along with you becomes MUCH more
inconvenient.
>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>
>True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
>and trains can read or do what they will.
And can go only where the bus or train does while so doing. 1D vs 2D is no
comparison.
>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
>
>Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
Dave "gee, then most of us must be hallucinating NYC" DeLaney
Cheryl
What's wrong with taking a taxi? I don't have to park it or repair it or
even drive it, and for short distances the fee charges for all these
services is affordable. I used to consider taxis luxury items until I
started using them on occasions I had a real load of groceries to
transport. All the advantages of a private car and none of the
disadvantages!
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>> (transport goods along with you,
>
> You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>
> True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
> and trains can read or do what they will.
>
>> relative privacy and security)
>
> Security against what? Per passenger mile, cars are by far the most
> dangerous form of transportation (except motorcycles).
>
>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
>
> Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
Not for small distances. I just said in another point that I find them
convenient sometimes - once or twice a month, maybe. I've noticed too
that a lot of elderly people who don't or maybe never did drive use
taxis, and can afford to do so if they have their doctor, grocery etc
comparatively close. That's not too hard to manage in many urban
environments.
You can take a lot of taxis for the cost of a car payment. Far more than
I do.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
I've often wondered why people have garbage disposals. They always seem
excessively nasty and unsanitary to me, with all that chopped-up garbage
going through it, not to mention what it would do to fingers or cutlery
stuck in it. I know, I know, you're not supposed to put your fingers or
cutlery in one, but it could happen by accident or if you were trying to
unclog the thing.
--
Cheryl
Mark Bestley
P;us you don't have to pay parking. I used to think a taxi was a luxury
for certain journeys from the rail station to home then a collegue gave
me a lift in his car and I found the car park fee was more than the taxi
fare and the driver made the same length of journey I did.
--
Mark
Louann Miller
@reader1.panix.com:
>:schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
>
> What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
> horrendous safety record.
I was thinking of security against random violence while you're on the bus
or subway, waiting at a stop with strangers, etc. Maybe it's because I'm a
girl. But since 51%-ish of the population is a girl TOO, I suspect the
worry is quite widespread.
Louann Miller
> What's wrong with taking a taxi?
Nothing, unless you're using the Cars Make Baby Gaia Cry argument. You
aren't, but some do.
Cheryl
You must live in a very violent place. I must say I can't remember
worrying about random violence on public transportation, not even when I
lived in Toronto. I didn't worry when I visited other large cities
either, but I suppose in that case, my lack of worry could have been
attributed to ignorance of local conditions, so I should stick to
commenting on places I actually know pretty well. And while I haven't
called myself a girl in years, I'm certain I'm female.
I don't think age has much to do with worrying about random violence
anyway, because the most worried person I know is a female of about my
age in my own quiet little city who once expressed concern about my
habit of walking after dark - when it's dark at 5 PM, which is when I
and hundreds and hundreds of others were leaving the same building at
the same time, and I certainly wasn't the only walker. But she's an
extreme case.
--
Cheryl
cryptoguy
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
> > (transport goods along with you,
>
> You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
> > go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>
> True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
> and trains can read or do what they will.
>
> > relative privacy and security)
>
> Security against what? Per passenger mile, cars are by far the most
> dangerous form of transportation (except motorcycles).
>
> > do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
> > transportation is 'Taxi'?
>
> Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
I guess that would explain why taxis are so unpopular that the supply
has to restricted in large cities, less they become the majoriy of the
traffic.
pt
cryptoguy
> In alt.folklore.urban Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :lath...@verizon.net (Richard D. Latham) wrote in
Back when I lived in Manhattan, I used taxis occasionally if it was
late, I was in a tearing hurry to get somewhere outside of rush hour,
or I was carrying something that would fit in the cab, but was awkward
to carry on the subway (which didn't leave much).
They make a great deal more sense when you're moving more than one
person.
pt
cryptoguy
Well, the 'garbage' you're putting into it is until-just-now good food
or cooking byproducts that you've just decided not to eat, not semi
compost, such as the stuff that's been sitting in your garbage can for
a week.
It removes from said garbage can not only most things that can rot,
smell, leak, and attract animals, but also a not-inconsiderable volume
of material.
pt
Don Freeman
> Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> The commuters don't matter. SF issues residential parking permits
>>> and residential areas are off limits to non-residents except for
>>> certain hours.
>
>> ObNit: Non-residents can park in the residential parking restricted
>> areas, but it is for a limited time such as would not be practical
>> for commuters.
>
> How is that a nit? You're saying the same thing as Hatunen.
>
No. I did not. These are two different restrictions. Dave brought up
the one about only being able to park from the evening to the morning.
I noted that this is not 100% true as you can still park during the
restricted time without a neighborhood permit but only for a limited
(usually two hours) time. Not enough time to park, go to work, and
return. Unless you were working a VERY short shift.
Understand the difference now, or should I attach a power point
presentation for you?
--
-Don
Mike Ash
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> In alt.folklore.urban Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :lat...@verizon.net (Richard D. Latham) wrote in
> :news:7hsoyk...@verizon.net:
>
> :> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
> :> car.
> :>
> :> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
> :> Francisco and Boston ?
>
> :Purely in the interest of making trouble:
>
> :Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages (transport
> :goods along with you, go exactly to your destination on exactly your own
> :schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
>
> What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
> horrendous safety record.
Horrendous? Please. Private automobiles are about ten times more
dangerous per passenger mile than airliners, which are so incredibly
safe that every single major accident makes the national news.
Cars aren't terribly safe, but neither are they terribly unsafe.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
netcat
> Louann Miller wrote:
> > David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote in news:hg9jha$bfp$1
> > @reader1.panix.com:
> >
> >> :schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
> >>
> >> What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
> >> horrendous safety record.
> >
> > I was thinking of security against random violence while you're on the bus
> > or subway, waiting at a stop with strangers, etc. Maybe it's because I'm a
> > girl. But since 51%-ish of the population is a girl TOO, I suspect the
> > worry is quite widespread.
>
> You must live in a very violent place. I must say I can't remember
> worrying about random violence on public transportation, not even when I
> lived in Toronto.
Not _on_ so much as while waiting to get on it.
The only time in my life I've ever been threatened with a weapon I
actually was standing in a bus stop.
rgds,
netcat
David Scheidt
:In article <hg9jha$bfp$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:> In alt.folklore.urban Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> :lat...@verizon.net (Richard D. Latham) wrote in
:> :news:7hsoyk...@verizon.net:
:>
:> :> I turned up the factoid that 1/4 of the residents of Manhattan own a
:> :> car.
:> :>
:> :> You wouldn't by any chance happen to have the percentages in San
:> :> Francisco and Boston ?
:>
:> :Purely in the interest of making trouble:
:>
:> :Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages (transport
:> :goods along with you, go exactly to your destination on exactly your own
:> :schedule, relative privacy and security) do we get to denounce them back
:>
:> What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
:> horrendous safety record.
:Horrendous? Please. Private automobiles are about ten times more
:dangerous per passenger mile than airliners, which are so incredibly
:safe that every single major accident makes the national news.
More people are killed in car crashes each year than american soliders
killed in vietnam.
:Cars aren't terribly safe, but neither are they terribly unsafe.
Can't think of a less safe mode of transportation, actrually.
--
sig 105
Bill Snyder
<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
Motorcycles.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
R H Draney
>
>On 15 Dec 2009 17:50:14 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Bill Snyder filted:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:34:22 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those
>>>> nice young men in their clean white coats
>>>> --- from Dr Demento
>>>> (not to be confused with Professor Dementor)
>>>
>>>Didn't Napoleon XIV predate Dr Demento by a few years?
>>
>> Barret Hansen - b. 2 Apr 1941
>> Jerry Samuels - b. 3 May 1938
>>
>>So, yes....r
>
>Maybe.
>
>He didn't ask if Samuels predated Hansen or vise versa. He asked
>it Napoleon XIV predated Dr Demento.
That too, since Samuels released "They're Coming To Take Me Away Ha-Haaa!" as
Napoleon XIV in 1966, while Hansen didn't start billing himself as "Dr Demento"
until around 1971....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Cheryl
Well, I've certainly waited for public transportation frequently. I
don't think I've ever been threatened with a weapon anywhere, unless you
count the time someone tried to smack me with a blackboard eraser, and
that was in a classroom, and anyway wasn't an attack by a stranger.
It never really occurs to me that I might be attacked by a stranger at a
bus stop. Mostly, we ignore each other, but sometimes we make
conversation about the weather, the bus system or Christmas shopping.
The people whose assaults are reported in the local media never seem to
have been at bus stops either. In the street, yes, but they've usually
gotten to the street by leaving/being thrown out of a bar or party.
--
Cheryl
Michael Stemper
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>> (transport goods along with you,
>
>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
>
>True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
>and trains can read or do what they will.
And they can do this not only while actually in motion, but also at
the bus or train stops.
>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
>
>Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
Interestingly, I dated a woman in 1979 who didn't own a car. She took
the bus to and from work, and used taxis for everything else. She
wasn't fabulously wealthy, either -- she was the receptionist for a
utility's purchasing department. She said that it was less expensive
than owning and operating a car. She could have been right, for her
circumstances, too.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.urban Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>:In article <hg9jha$bfp$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>:> In alt.folklore.urban Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:> :lat...@verizon.net (Richard D. Latham) wrote in
>:> :news:7hsoyk...@verizon.net:
>:>
>:> What security? Per passenger mile, private automobiles have a truly
>:> horrendous safety record.
>
>:Horrendous? Please. Private automobiles are about ten times more
>:dangerous per passenger mile than airliners, which are so incredibly
>:safe that every single major accident makes the national news.
>
>More people are killed in car crashes each year than american soliders
>killed in vietnam.
That's more people are killed _worldwide_ in car crashes each year
than Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. Which may be what you
meant, but I'm making it explicit for those Americans who assume It's
All About Us.
If you're only looking at the U.S., it's 38,000 auto deaths a year,
compared to 58,000 combat deaths in Vietnam.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Charles Wm. Dimmick
I know not whereof you speak. If it will compost it goes in the compost
bin. This includes paper towels, tea bags, coffee filters and grounds,
orange peels, egg shells, cat hair, potato peels, etc.
We've had this compost bin for 15 years now, and it is still only half
full. Funny thing is, it was half full 12 years ago and seems to have
reached some sort of steady-state condition.
Charles
David Scheidt
:In article <hg9hjk$na1$2...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
:>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
:>> (transport goods along with you,
:>
:>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
:For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
:of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
:new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
Delivery services. And you can easily get a weeks groceries for a
family of four on a bike.
:>> go exactly to your destination on exactly your own schedule,
:>
:>True, but only by working as an unpaid driver. Passengers on buses
:>and trains can read or do what they will.
:And they can do this not only while actually in motion, but also at
:the bus or train stops.
:>> do we get to denounce them back if their preferred method of public
:>> transportation is 'Taxi'?
:>
:>Taxis are far too expensive to be practical for most people.
:Interestingly, I dated a woman in 1979 who didn't own a car. She took
:the bus to and from work, and used taxis for everything else. She
:wasn't fabulously wealthy, either -- she was the receptionist for a
:utility's purchasing department. She said that it was less expensive
:than owning and operating a car. She could have been right, for her
:circumstances, too.
:--
:Michael F. Stemper
:#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
:Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
--
sig 57
Dorothy J Heydt
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.urban Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>:In article <hg9hjk$na1$2...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>:>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>:>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>:>> (transport goods along with you,
>:>
>:>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
>:For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
>:of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
>:new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
>
>Delivery services. And you can easily get a weeks groceries for a
>family of four on a bike.
Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
delivered. They took orders by phone, loaded the groceries into
carton boxes, and muscular young men drove them to their
destination and, as I suppose, carried them into the house. I
think these customers had charge accounts, too. An echo of a
bygone past. It didn't last much longer.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
Well, I have a wood stove, too. I roasted a bratwurst in it as part of
my lunch today.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Doug Wickström
<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>More people are killed in car crashes each year than american soliders
>killed in vietnam.
Well, yes. Though I hope you're not saying more Americans are
killed each year in such, because it's not true.
The world is a big place, and contains many more cars than North
America does.
--
Doug Wickström
James
> In article <hgbc74$eb...@reader1.panix.com>,
> David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In alt.folklore.urban Michael Stemper <mstem...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
> >:In article <hg9hjk$na...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch"
> ><k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> >:>Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >:>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
> >:>> (transport goods along with you,
> >:>
> >:>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
> >:For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
> >:of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
> >:new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
>
> >Delivery services. And you can easily get a weeks groceries for a
> >family of four on a bike.
>
> Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
> the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
> came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
> delivered. They took orders by phone, loaded the groceries into
> carton boxes, and muscular young men drove them to their
> destination and, as I suppose, carried them into the house. I
> think these customers had charge accounts, too. An echo of a
> bygone past. It didn't last much longer.
During the internet boom, a Canadian startup called GroceryGateway
began offering a service to order on line and have groceries delivered
to your door. They did offer the services in major cities, having one
central warehouse per major center. They struggled to find the volume.
They were bought out by a major chain, eliminated the warehouse, and
work with the warehouse of the chain. I could order right now if I
wanted, for delivery tomorrow am.
Of course how many people without cars get their groceries home is by
taxi. Growing up my local store had a phone that was a direct line to
a taxi dispatcher. You can take public transport there, and taxi home.
As for drywall etc., Home depot and its competitors in Canada offer a
rental service. 90 mins with a full size van for $20. I used it
myself to deliver a bathtub and other supplies that wouldn't fit in my
minivan.
While in my current circumstance I need a car, I can wistfully
remember getting along just fine without one in the big city. It
especially makes sense in a large city as insurance costs are much
higher there, as well as the wear and tear of stop and go traffic
increasing gas and maintenance costs.
James
James Nicoll
Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:13 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
><dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>More people are killed in car crashes each year than american soliders
>>killed in vietnam.
>
>Well, yes. Though I hope you're not saying more Americans are
>killed each year in such, because it's not true.
Americans killed last year in car crashes: about 37,000. US
soldiers killed last year in Viet Nam: actually, I couldn't find a
number but it doesn't seem to be very high.
During the US phase of the Unpleasantness in Viet Nam, the US had about
58,000 soldiers KIA.
Despite the growth in population in the US, annual fatalities have
declined over the years. See this handy chart stolen without credit
from wikipedia:
1979 Fatalities 2002 Fatalities Percent Change
United States 51,093 42,815 -16.2%
Great Britain 6,352 3,431 -46.0%
Canada 5,863 2,936 -49.9%
Australia 3,508 1,715 -51.1%
Which tells me immediately that in 1979, Canadians were more likely to
end up bleeding out in a crumpled pile of twisted metal than Americans
but since then they have reduced their accident rates more effectively
than the Americans have.
The figure I found for auto fatalities worldwide was about 1.2 million.
Assuming that's right, the US fraction of the fatalities is less than
one would expect given their fraction of the human population (and
almost certainly much less than one would expect given what fraction
of cars on Earth are in the USA).
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In alt.folklore.urban Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
> :In article <hg9hjk$na1$2...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
> :>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
> :>> (transport goods along with you,
> :>
> :>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
> :For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
> :of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
> :new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
>
> Delivery services. And you can easily get a weeks groceries for a
> family of four on a bike.
>
"Boss! De Plane! De Plane!"
"Welcome, Mr. Scheidt, to Fantasy Island."
I suppose you might be able to argue you're right, if you put everyone
on the identical, non-varying diet, and count nothing other than food in
"groceries", but I'd have a hard time carrying my family's weekly supply
of PAPER TOWELS on a bike (it's not the weight, it's the space), let
alone all the other stuff.
Leaving aside that I wouldn't ride a bike in traffic around here, and
it'd be useless at least 3 months to 4 months of the year.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
But still, you're using all that metal when you could just have a
simple fire! No one needs more than that!
Wayne Throop
: Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
: the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
: came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
: delivered. They took orders by phone, loaded the groceries into
: carton boxes, and muscular young men drove them to their
: destination and, as I suppose, carried them into the house. I
: think these customers had charge accounts, too. An echo of a
: bygone past. It didn't last much longer.
Part of the dotcom bubble in 2000-ish, there were grocery stores
that took orders via web and delivered. And I think it's been
attempted again since then, maybe about 2006 or thereabouts.
They uniformly fail, or at least, so far they have.
That's from memory; I don't have any cites.
However, I imagine there are separate delivery/shopping services
that one could use, just not at the price-point the above attempts
attempted to hit.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Kurt Busiek
Last I knew, there were places like Peapod.com, but I haven't been
paying attention. They delivered groceries.
Other services exist, as well. Our next door neighbors get their
groceries delivered, so someone's still doing it.
kdb
--
http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Wayne Throop
::::: taken in your own car by taxi instead, why does *anyone* have a car?
:::: If you can cook all your meals on a stovetop, why would anybody buy
:::: and use an oven, or even worse, a microwave?
::: A STOVE? Why're you using that stupidly complex and expensive
::: invention, when wood's lying around for the taking and you can have
::: a fire just anywhere
:: Well, I have a wood stove, too.
:: I roasted a bratwurst in it as part of my lunch today.
: But still, you're using all that metal when you could just have a
: simple fire! No one needs more than that!
Plus, the inefficiency of everybody gathering their own wood and going to
the trouble and expense of lighting their own fires. Better they should
catch up on their reading while specialists do the wood-wrangling and
build a community bonfire for the whole neighborhood, and everybody cook
at the same time. Since you can cook communally for less money/effort,
why would anybody want to cook for themselves on their own schedule?
Michael Stemper
>In alt.folklore.urban Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>:In article <hg9hjk$na1$2...@reader1.panix.com>, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>:>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:>> Among the subset of non-car-owners who belittle its advantages
>:>> (transport goods along with you,
>:>
>:>You can do that with almost any form of transporation.
>
>:For some very limited values of "goods". Taking groceries for a family
>:of four wouldn't work too well on a bicycle or a bus. Neither would a
>:new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
>
>Delivery services.
That does not qualify as "transport goods along with you ... almost
any form of transportation", which was Keith's claim. That is pretty
much the *opposite* of "transporting with you".
> And you can easily get a weeks groceries for a
>family of four on a bike.
Excuse me? I'm single and my minimum is two brown paper bags full. That
is bare minimum, and it is more often three, and sometimes peaks at
five. That's for a single person. When I'm waiting behind someone who's
shopping for a family, my mind is boggled by the quantity (not to mention
cost) of what they buy.
>--
>sig 57
That's catchy. Can I quote it?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
Warren Oates
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> Interestingly, I dated a woman in 1979 who didn't own a car. She took
> the bus to and from work, and used taxis for everything else. She
> wasn't fabulously wealthy, either -- she was the receptionist for a
> utility's purchasing department. She said that it was less expensive
> than owning and operating a car. She could have been right, for her
> circumstances, too.
I lived in Hongkong in the mid-eighties, and taxis were so cheap it was
ridiculous. The drop fee was about 50 cents (US), and the per-mile
charge was very low. It never occurred to anyone not to take a cab. It
was always good, though, to be able to say the name of your destination
in some sort of mangled Cantonese. I worked for a film company, and
they'd have a fairly big shoot going on, somewhere reasonably distant,
and instead of renting a van and two cars (say), they'd call 4 taxis and
it would cost them nothing.
Of course, the trams in Hongkong only cost 10 _Hongkong_ cents to ride.
You had to have the little coin though. Local phone calls were free too;
you wanted to make a call, you walked into a restaurant or a department
store and there'd be a phone sitting there for you to use.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
Michael Stemper
You're not proposing that people be required to sign up for a communal
fire, are you? Even if they're decided to opt out and fend for themselves
because the fires available aren't at their price point?
ObSFW: The Kitchens in _The Caves of Steel_
trag
> Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
> the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
> came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
> delivered.
The Randalls in Austin (I believe they're a Safeway affiliate) had a
service called PeaPod which delivered groceries for a while. I
believe it started in the late 90s some time. I'm not sure when it
ended. I simply noticed one day that I hadn't heard their ad on the
radio in a long time. Probably early 2000s.
Wayne Throop
: You're not proposing that people be required to sign up for a communal
: fire, are you? Even if they're decided to opt out and fend for themselves
: because the fires available aren't at their price point?
No no, just that anybody who opts out and owns their own fire
is a big stupid-head, and should be sneered at. Private fire
ownership just doesn't add up. Do the numbers and you'll see.
Moriarty
> In article <28gii598hpm5gu1c9e2ulcj1glg64ic...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Wickström <nimshu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:13 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> ><dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>More people are killed in car crashes each year than american soliders
> >>killed in vietnam.
>
> >Well, yes. Though I hope you're not saying more Americans are
> >killed each year in such, because it's not true.
>
> Americans killed last year in car crashes: about 37,000. US
> soldiers killed last year in Viet Nam: actually, I couldn't find a
> number but it doesn't seem to be very high.
>
> During the US phase of the Unpleasantness in Viet Nam, the US had about
> 58,000 soldiers KIA.
>
> Despite the growth in population in the US, annual fatalities have
> declined over the years. See this handy chart stolen without credit
> from wikipedia:
>
> 1979 Fatalities 2002 Fatalities Percent Change
>
> United States 51,093 42,815 -16.2%
> Great Britain 6,352 3,431 -46.0%
> Canada 5,863 2,936 -49.9%
> Australia 3,508 1,715 -51.1%
Interesting. In Australia 1979 was about the time when, despite howls
of protests from some quarters, a) seat belts were made compulsory and
b) random breath testing was introduced.
Apparently forcing people to use safety devices and getting drunks off
the road reduces road deaths. Whoda thunk it?
-Moriarty
Default User
> Part of the dotcom bubble in 2000-ish, there were grocery stores
> that took orders via web and delivered. And I think it's been
> attempted again since then, maybe about 2006 or thereabouts.
> They uniformly fail, or at least, so far they have.
There's one chain in St. Louis that's had it for many years.
<http://www.schnucks.com/express/help/tutorial.html>
Brian
--
Day 317 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
> the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
> came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
> delivered. They took orders by phone, loaded the groceries into
> carton boxes, and muscular young men drove them to their
> destination and, as I suppose, carried them into the house. I
> think these customers had charge accounts, too. An echo of a
> bygone past. It didn't last much longer.
>
Here in New England Stop-n-Shop has Peapod service:
Dimensional Traveler
because there have been several assaults (with knives in some cases) on
the buses recently. The scandal comes from the fact that as a result
the public learned that a large percentage of the security cameras on
the buses don't work.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Dorothy J Heydt
Which everyone wanted to get out of, because having one's own
kitchen was a mark of status.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> : djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> : Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
>> : the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
>> : came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
>> : delivered. They took orders by phone, loaded the groceries into
>> : carton boxes, and muscular young men drove them to their
>> : destination and, as I suppose, carried them into the house. I
>> : think these customers had charge accounts, too. An echo of a
>> : bygone past. It didn't last much longer.
>>
>> Part of the dotcom bubble in 2000-ish, there were grocery stores
>> that took orders via web and delivered. And I think it's been
>> attempted again since then, maybe about 2006 or thereabouts.
>> They uniformly fail, or at least, so far they have.
>>
>> That's from memory; I don't have any cites.
>>
>> However, I imagine there are separate delivery/shopping services
>> that one could use, just not at the price-point the above attempts
>> attempted to hit.
>
>Last I knew, there were places like Peapod.com, but I haven't been
>paying attention. They delivered groceries.
>
>Other services exist, as well. Our next door neighbors get their
>groceries delivered, so someone's still doing it.
Yeah, around here there's hot competition between Giant's Peapod
service and Safeway's Safeway.com.
We tried Safeway.com, with mixed results -- the driver got caught in
traffic and was hours late.
David Goldfarb
trag <tr...@io.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 2:09 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken
>> the habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first
>> came to the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that
>> delivered.
>
>The Randalls in Austin (I believe they're a Safeway affiliate) had a
>service called PeaPod which delivered groceries for a while.
The Rice Epicurean Markets in Houston deliver -- at least, when I go
to the one near where I live, I often see a van there advertising
the service. Sometimes I see the vans driving down the street.
It says they have web ordering at ricedelivers.com. I've never
tried it myself.
--
David Goldfarb |"Hey, mister! Are you about to drag our brother off
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to a bleak nether realm of despair where the
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | future is nothing but an endless sea of anguish
| and horrible misery?"
| "Yah."
|"We wanna go tooooo!" -- Animaniacs
David Goldfarb
Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>I know, I know, you're not supposed to put your fingers or
>cutlery in one, but it could happen by accident or if you were trying to
>unclog the thing.
If I were putting something in my garbage disposal to attempt to unclog
it, I'd disconnect the power first. Seems like an obvious precaution.
--
David Goldfarb |"I suppose an idiot plot is better than
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | no plot at all."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Katie Schwarz
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <7orvvoF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>> I know, I know, you're not supposed to put your fingers or
>> cutlery in one, but it could happen by accident or if you were trying to
>> unclog the thing.
>
> If I were putting something in my garbage disposal to attempt to unclog
> it, I'd disconnect the power first. Seems like an obvious precaution.
>
I don't see ANY simple way to do that on mine. It's wired to a switch.
I can turn the switch off, but if I want to disconnect the power, I'd
have to go down and throw a breaker that would I think kill the entire
kitchen.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> if I want to disconnect the power, I'd
> have to go down and throw a breaker that would I think kill the entire
> kitchen.
I did that when I was repairing something on my stove once. I have a
major respect for electricity. So did my brother. We both, at different
times when very young, were told by my father who was supposedly fixing
a lamp in my case: "hold this while I plug it in". It was not fixed.
erilar
All that metal makes the smoke go up the chimney instead of my nose and
keeps the fire from burning things I prefer unburned.
Don Freeman
Unless it was some sort of jury-rigged setup it will have an electrical
socket under the sink that the disposal plugs into.
--
-Don
Kurt Busiek
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:14:03 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Busiek
> <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
>> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>> I imagine there are separate delivery/shopping services
>>> that one could use, just not at the price-point the above attempts
>>> attempted to hit.
>>
>> Last I knew, there were places like Peapod.com, but I haven't been
>> paying attention. They delivered groceries.
>>
>> Other services exist, as well. Our next door neighbors get their
>> groceries delivered, so someone's still doing it.
>
> Yeah, around here there's hot competition between Giant's Peapod
> service and Safeway's Safeway.com.
>
> We tried Safeway.com, with mixed results -- the driver got caught in
> traffic and was hours late.
Yeah, I think it's Safeway that the neighbors here use.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Dimensional Traveler
Co.), one of which was Safeway, but neither one is still delivering
anymore AFAIK.
Keith F. Lynch
> I have a major respect for electricity.
Me too. It was, until recently, the way people were executed here
in Virginia. AC electricity was originally adopted as a means of
execution at the urging of Thomas Edison, who wanted to emphasize how
dangerous it was, so as to encourage demand for the DC electricity he
was promoting.
Of course DC is almost as dangerous as AC. Electric chairs would work
just fine with DC.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
William December Starr
"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> said:
> I know not whereof you speak. If it will compost it goes in the
> compost bin. This includes paper towels, tea bags, coffee filters
> and grounds, orange peels, egg shells, cat hair, potato peels,
> etc.
Does cat hair -- mammalian fur, in general -- compost? Intuitively,
I see it just sitting there inertly until it finally gets eaten by
the swollen red Sun.
-- wds
Cryptoengineer
> In article <hgb8og$3u...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdimm...@snet.net> said:
>
> > I know not whereof you speak. If it will compost it goes in the
> > compost bin. This includes paper towels, tea bags, coffee filters
> > and grounds, orange peels, egg shells, cat hair, potato peels,
> > etc.
>
> Does cat hair -- mammalian fur, in general -- compost? Intuitively,
> I see it just sitting there inertly until it finally gets eaten by
> the swollen red Sun.
I'm under the impression that it lasts longer than flesh, but not by
that much. Any body buried in the dirt turns to a skeleton without
hair eventually.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> Does cat hair -- mammalian fur, in general -- compost? Intuitively,
> I see it just sitting there inertly until it finally gets eaten by
> the swollen red Sun.
If so, after half a million millennia of mammals, we'd be miles deep
in fur by now. So I conclude that it does decay.
Keith F. Lynch
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> Are there still grocery stores that deliver? Or have any taken the
>> habit up again? I can still remember, in 1961 when I first came to
>> the University, a grocery in downtown Berkeley that delivered.
Thanks to the Internet, everything old is new again.
> The Randalls in Austin (I believe they're a Safeway affiliate) had
> a service called PeaPod which delivered groceries for a while. I
> believe it started in the late 90s some time. I'm not sure when it
> ended. I simply noticed one day that I hadn't heard their ad on the
> radio in a long time. Probably early 2000s.
They still exist here in Virginia. My mother has made use of them
within the past year. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peapod
Keith F. Lynch
> Plus, the inefficiency of everybody gathering their own wood and
> going to the trouble and expense of lighting their own fires.
> Better they should catch up on their reading while specialists do
> the wood-wrangling and build a community bonfire for the whole
> neighborhood, and everybody cook at the same time. Since you can
> cook communally for less money/effort, why would anybody want to
> cook for themselves on their own schedule?
Well, eating out is quite popular.
Speaking of which, an analogy I've used is that bringing your car into
a city is like bringing your oven to a restaurant.
Keith F. Lynch
> ... but I'd have a hard time carrying my family's weekly supply of
> PAPER TOWELS on a bike (it's not the weight, it's the space), let
> alone all the other stuff.
What does your family *do* with all those paper towels? A single roll
lasts me two or three months.
Strobe
wrote:
>cryptoguy wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 6:52 am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>> I've often wondered why people have garbage disposals. They always seem
>>> excessively nasty and unsanitary to me, with all that chopped-up garbage
>>> going through it, not to mention what it would do to fingers or cutlery
>>> stuck in it. I know, I know, you're not supposed to put your fingers or
>>> cutlery in one, but it could happen by accident or if you were trying to
>>> unclog the thing.
>>
>> Well, the 'garbage' you're putting into it is until-just-now good food
>> or cooking byproducts that you've just decided not to eat, not semi
>> compost, such as the stuff that's been sitting in your garbage can for
>> a week.
>>
>> It removes from said garbage can not only most things that can rot,
>> smell, leak, and attract animals, but also a not-inconsiderable volume
>> of material.
>
>I know not whereof you speak. If it will compost it goes in the compost
>bin. This includes paper towels, tea bags, coffee filters and grounds,
>orange peels, egg shells, cat hair, potato peels, etc.
>
>We've had this compost bin for 15 years now, and it is still only half
>full. Funny thing is, it was half full 12 years ago and seems to have
>reached some sort of steady-state condition.
That's a funny thing about compost - you're actually _supposed_ to
remove some of it from time to time.
Keith F. Lynch
> Taking groceries for a family of four wouldn't work too well on a
> bicycle or a bus.
That depends on how often you shop.
> Neither would a new lawnmower or a few pieces of sheetrock.
Lawnmowers have wheels -- you can easily push them home from the
store. I'll grant that sheetrock could be a problem. But with the
aid of a hand truck, I've carried a bookcase on Metrorail.