Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>> ... but you do seem to get good mileage from sneering at the
>> proletariat.
>
>Not at all, except perhaps in the most extreme (Darwin award) cases.
>And this has nothing to do with social class. I have no idea what
>social class I'm in, anyway.
>
>> Or, I'm a bit reluctant to attribute to stupidity what can
>> adequately be explained by mere variation in the values assigned to
>> outcomes/goals/methods.
>
>Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their commutes,
>as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at their word.
You don't see them switching, do you?
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:19:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>> ... but you do seem to get good mileage from sneering at the
>>> proletariat.
>>
>>Not at all, except perhaps in the most extreme (Darwin award) cases.
>>And this has nothing to do with social class. I have no idea what
>>social class I'm in, anyway.
>>
>>> Or, I'm a bit reluctant to attribute to stupidity what can
>>> adequately be explained by mere variation in the values assigned to
>>> outcomes/goals/methods.
>>
>>Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their commutes,
>>as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at their word.
>
>You don't see them switching, do you?
Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
--
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
::: commutes, as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at
::: their word.
:: You don't see them switching, do you?
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
: Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit systems
for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>::: Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their
>::: commutes, as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at
>::: their word.
>
>:: You don't see them switching, do you?
>
>: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>: Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
>
>I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit systems
>for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
True.
But we're debating whether we still need two cars -- or rather, we
know we DON'T need two cars anymore, but we haven't quite brought
ourselves to sell the second one.
For one thing, we'd keep the sedan and sell the van, but until we
finish furnishing the new house, the van's useful for hauling stuff.
Walter Bushell
<4v6ei5tvddnkvotpc...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:39:18 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:19:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> ><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
> >>> ... but you do seem to get good mileage from sneering at the
> >>> proletariat.
> >>
> >>Not at all, except perhaps in the most extreme (Darwin award) cases.
> >>And this has nothing to do with social class. I have no idea what
> >>social class I'm in, anyway.
> >>
> >>> Or, I'm a bit reluctant to attribute to stupidity what can
> >>> adequately be explained by mere variation in the values assigned to
> >>> outcomes/goals/methods.
> >>
> >>Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their commutes,
> >>as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at their word.
> >
> >You don't see them switching, do you?
>
> Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
It's a choice, further out you get more house and land. People don't
realize how much a long commute will take out of them, more of course if
they have to drive and especially over crowded roads. At the present,
people are basically stuck, because houses are selling like hotcakes at
a Aktins dieter's convention.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Hatunen
Throop) wrote:
>::: Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their
>::: commutes, as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at
>::: their word.
>
>:: You don't see them switching, do you?
>
>: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>: Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
>
>I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit systems
>for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
If one is commuting one probably lives in a suburb where a car is
necessary so the wife needs one.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:49:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>Throop) wrote:
>
>>::: Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their
>>::: commutes, as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at
>>::: their word.
>>
>>:: You don't see them switching, do you?
>>
>>: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>>: Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
>>
>>I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit systems
>>for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
>
>If one is commuting one probably lives in a suburb where a car is
>necessary so the wife needs one.
"Wife"?
More women are now employed outside the home than men, thanks in part
to the current recession -- or at least, so the Washington Post
reported on Sunday. In my own family, I work at home and my wife
commutes into Washington.
Hatunen
<l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:32:20 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:49:43 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne
>>Throop) wrote:
>>
>>>::: Sure. But when car commuters complain constantly about their
>>>::: commutes, as, in my experience, they do around here, I take them at
>>>::: their word.
>>>
>>>:: You don't see them switching, do you?
>>>
>>>: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>>>: Well, my wife switched. That's one reason we live in Takoma Park.
>>>
>>>I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit systems
>>>for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
>>
>>If one is commuting one probably lives in a suburb where a car is
>>necessary so the wife needs one.
>
>"Wife"?
>
>More women are now employed outside the home than men, thanks in part
>to the current recession -- or at least, so the Washington Post
>reported on Sunday. In my own family, I work at home and my wife
>commutes into Washington.
Um. I didn't say the wife had to be a soccer mom. She may need a
car to get to her own job which might not be amenable to
commuting by public transit.
Quadibloc
> It's a choice, further out you get more house and land.
If one is planning to have children, there is also the matter, in the
United States, of safe schools to send them to. So extending the
corporate boundaries of the city, so that public transit can be run to
the suburbs, is not a solution.
John Savard
Hatunen
Most American metro areas have regional transit that does run to
the suburbs. But except for certain areas, such as NYC and SF,
the suburban transit tends to be too slow and infrequent for
commuting into the central city. Attempts to provide faster
transit, usually rail, is being tried with mixed success.
In the SF Bay Area, during the runup to the bursting of the real
estate bubble, commuter were moving as far away as Stockton where
property was cheaper with very crowded auto commuting approaching
90 minutes each way back into the Bay Area proper.
Commuter rail is provided with the ACE system, but its conections
to the rest of the region's transit is pretty bad. About the only
place ACE is good for is San Jose and its northern suburbs. For
instance, the Dublin ACE station is quite a distance from the
Dublin BART station.
Michael Stemper
Interestingly, here in the great white south, public transit is not
generally limited to the confines of single cities, so its extension
does not require changes to municipal boundaries. School districts
generally encompass more than one city as well.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
Walter Bushell
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> In article
> <1d6a46b1-cf1d-4632...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >On Dec 15, 6:34=A0am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a choice, further out you get more house and land.
> >
> >If one is planning to have children, there is also the matter, in the
> >United States, of safe schools to send them to. So extending the
> >corporate boundaries of the city, so that public transit can be run to
> >the suburbs, is not a solution.
>
> Interestingly, here in the great white south, public transit is not
> generally limited to the confines of single cities, so its extension
> does not require changes to municipal boundaries. School districts
> generally encompass more than one city as well.
Even in the Washington DC. area the trains run a good distance into
Maryland and Virginia. And there are Park and Ride facilities, to save
the agony of driving in the city.
cryptoguy
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:04:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>
> >On Dec 15, 6:34 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a choice, further out you get more house and land.
>
> >If one is planning to have children, there is also the matter, in the
> >United States, of safe schools to send them to. So extending the
> >corporate boundaries of the city, so that public transit can be run to
> >the suburbs, is not a solution.
>
> Most American metro areas have regional transit that does run to
> the suburbs. But except for certain areas, such as NYC and SF,
> the suburban transit tends to be too slow and infrequent for
> commuting into the central city. Attempts to provide faster
> transit, usually rail, is being tried with mixed success.
One of the things that the 'everyone should use public transport'
crowd often fails to comprehend is that hub and spoke commuting
systems are utterly useless for many commuters. I recently saw a
survey of commuting flows in the Greater Boston area; it looked like a
bowl of spaghetti. Fully half of commutes were from one suburb to
another, in a more or less random pattern.
No hub and spoke system can handle this, and putting in enough public
transport to do so would be prohibitively expensive.
Not only has the car moved people out of the city, its moved jobs as
well. A very large proportion of workplaces are now in low-density
office parks.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> One of the things that the 'everyone should use public transport'
> crowd
I don't know of any such crowd. I do know of people who think if
mass transit was better organized, most people wouldn't need a car.
> often fails to comprehend is that hub and spoke commuting systems
> are utterly useless for many commuters. I recently saw a survey of
> commuting flows in the Greater Boston area; it looked like a bowl of
> spaghetti. Fully half of commutes were from one suburb to another,
> in a more or less random pattern.
I agree that a better pattern would be to have east-west and north-
south lines, meaning that anyone in the region could get anywhere in
the region with at most one transfer. But I suppose the same is true
with a pure hub and spoke system, except that all the transfers take
place at the same point, and the distances tend to be longer.
> No hub and spoke system can handle this, and putting in enough
> public transport to do so would be prohibitively expensive.
I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
This is insane.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> It's a choice, further out you get more house and land.
> If one is planning to have children, there is also the matter, in
> the United States, of safe schools to send them to.
Why are there unsafe schools?
> So extending the corporate boundaries of the city, so that public
> transit can be run to the suburbs, is not a solution.
Plenty of transit systems cross city boundaries. Or even state
boundaries.
Keith F. Lynch
> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>> I expect there's a noticeable difference between using mass transit
>> systems for a commute to work, and giving up car ownership entirely.
If you can get to work, you can almost certainly also get to shopping,
etc.
> If one is commuting one probably lives in a suburb where a car is
> necessary so the wife needs one.
If transit serves the suburb for you, why wouldn't it serve the same
suburb for the wife?
Wayne Throop
: If transit serves the suburb for you, why wouldn't it serve the same
: suburb for the wife?
Do you actually mean to say that that's not obvious?
If the non-commuting spouse wanted to go to the set of places the
commuting spouse finds sufficient for getting to work, sure, but it
seems unlikely that'd be what's needed. More likely, there'd be a need
to go to a wider selection of places, at a wider spectrum of times.
The very features of cars which have been pointed out to you over and
over and over again as the reason people prefer them.
"Commuting to work" and "all transport needs" aren't the same.
"Michal Dwuznik (Michał Dwużnik)"
>
> "Commuting to work" and "all transport needs" aren't the same.
>
Might be the same for some people... Now I understand the question "By
whom?" coming from Keith when I said that office/bed/canteen triangle is
not how life is intended to be lived.
Michal
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of the things that the 'everyone should use public transport'
> > crowd
>
> I don't know of any such crowd. I do know of people who think if
> mass transit was better organized, most people wouldn't need a car.
Barring people who live and/or work in urban areas (as you do) they
are incorrect. To make it work, you'd also have to force mass movement
of residents and jobs into cities. Good luck with that.
> > often fails to comprehend is that hub and spoke commuting systems
> > are utterly useless for many commuters. I recently saw a survey of
> > commuting flows in the Greater Boston area; it looked like a bowl of
> > spaghetti. Fully half of commutes were from one suburb to another,
> > in a more or less random pattern.
>
> I agree that a better pattern would be to have east-west and north-
> south lines, meaning that anyone in the region could get anywhere in
> the region with at most one transfer. But I suppose the same is true
> with a pure hub and spoke system, except that all the transfers take
> place at the same point, and the distances tend to be longer.
> > No hub and spoke system can handle this, and putting in enough
> > public transport to do so would be prohibitively expensive.
>
> I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
> a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
> consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
> pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
> like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
"One bus" can't do the job. This is Keith again failing to comprehend
that TWIAVBP[1]. To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50 dispersed
jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus. Force them
to make transfers, and the time doubles.
People don't want that.
My current commute is about the same as Keith's in terms of distance;
about 8 miles, give or take. I do it in about 10 minutes. Keith has
told me that his public-transport-enabled commute takes him 60-90
minutes, each way.
Which would you prefer? Even when I drove 45 miles each way, I usually
did it in under an hour. I couldn't read books, true, but podcasts,
audiobooks, and satellite radio substituted.
> It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
> over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
> This is insane.
No: this is false, on several levels.
1. "The city" didn't spend it. The nation did. Most of the money was
federal. This is appropriate, since it eases a transit chokepoint for
a big chunk of all traffic in New England. The rest came from the
state.
2. The 'per resident' figure you use is the population of the city of
Boston. Like most American cities, the core city is its own
administrative district, but far more people live in the surrounding
conurbation.
In fact, City of Boston residents probably drive in the Big Dig less
than other people in the greater Boston area, since it's a through
route, and a commuter artery much more than something you'll hop on
while driving within the city.
However, non-driving City of Boston residents benefit greatly from it;
it took an aging and very ugly elevated highway, and dropped it below
ground. The area above it is now a broad boulevard, with local streets
at the edges, and a nice park running along the center. A non-driver
like you would like it; aren't you always complaining about highways
cutting you off from places?
pt
[1] The World Is A Very Big Place. Keith recently opined that
approaching 5% of the total area of the US consisted of urban cores in
which owning a car made no sense. That's about the area of California.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>However, non-driving City of Boston residents benefit greatly from it;
>it took an aging and very ugly elevated highway, and dropped it below
>ground. The area above it is now a broad boulevard, with local streets
>at the edges, and a nice park running along the center. A non-driver
>like you would like it; aren't you always complaining about highways
>cutting you off from places?
Also, it's FAR more convenient to drive than the old set-up. I always
used to dread driving into (as opposed to "in") Boston, and now it's
no big deal at all. (Driving IN Boston is still horrendous, of
course.)
David Harmon
F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> It's a choice, further out you get more house and land.
>
>> If one is planning to have children, there is also the matter, in
>> the United States, of safe schools to send them to.
>
>Why are there unsafe schools?
Because administrators make the same amount of money whether the schools
are safe or unsafe, or possibly just a bit more if they are unsafe.
Consider it an extension of Adam Smith's explanation of why there are
lazy teachers.
Walter Bushell
<2c5d2e37-3cf4-4758...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quite possibly that will have to change.
Walter Bushell
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
> a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
> consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
> pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
> like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
>
> It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
> over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
> This is insane.
Most of the "Big Dig" money went for graft and paying off connected
contractors.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hg9hcf$na1$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
>> a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
>> consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
>> pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
>> like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
>>
>> It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
>> over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
>> This is insane.
>
> Most of the "Big Dig" money went for graft and paying off connected
> contractors.
>
This sounds positively nostalgic. I was re-reading "Don't Know Much
About History" not long ago, especially the part about Boss Tweed.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
cryptoguy
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >> I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
> >> a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
> >> consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
> >> pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
> >> like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
>
> >> It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
> >> over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
> >> This is insane.
>
> > Most of the "Big Dig" money went for graft and paying off connected
> > contractors.
>
> This sounds positively nostalgic. I was re-reading "Don't Know Much
> About History" not long ago, especially the part about Boss Tweed.
Certainly a good chunk of money went astray, this is Massachusetts,
after all. But 'most'? Over $11 billion? Please document.
I'm aware of about 600 million in identified funds that the state has
ordered be paid back. It seems implausible that there's another 10+
billion out there.
pt
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <hg9hcf$na1$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I strongly disagree. Running one bus that carries 50 people costs
>> a lot less than running 50 cars. It also takes up less road space,
>> consumes less fuel, places bystanders at less risk, and produces less
>> pollution. And of course the passengers can read or do what they
>> like; they don't all have to work as unpaid drivers.
>>
>> It's interesting that you're discussing a city that recently spent
>> over $35,000 per resident (!) for its car-oriented "Big Dig."
>> This is insane.
>
> Most of the "Big Dig" money went for graft and paying off connected
> contractors.
>
families of those killed when said roof fell. (It may have been only
one family.)
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Keith F. Lynch
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Most of the "Big Dig" money went for graft and paying off connected
>> contractors.
Maybe so, but it still counts unless the money is returned. Is there
any way to have a large government project without graft and paying
off connected contractors?
If you think the Big Dig is bad, just wait until Obamacare. Well-
connected contractors will make hundreds of billions off that fiasco.
I used to work for a contractor that provided software to military
hospitals. After a few years, a better-connected contractor won the
award for supporting that software, then promptly subcontracted it
back to my employer. The better-connected contractor kept most of
the money, and did nothing. But then, after a few years, an even
better-connected contractor won a bid to write a whole new system,
and the other two companies were out of luck, and I was out of a job.
> I thought most of it went to replacing the roof and paying off the
> families of those killed when said roof fell. (It may have been
> only one family.)
Nobody gets billions for wrongful death. Millions, maybe, but only
if they died in the 9/11 attacks.
Who would have thought that glue isn't an appropriate way to hold up
three-ton concrete roof cladding in a vibration-prone tunnel? It's
not as if, for a mere $22 billion, they could have afforded something
better, such as steel arches, or even nuts and bolts.
cryptoguy
Exactly one person was killed, and the family was paid off by the
contractor, not the state or Feds.
pt
Dimensional Traveler
(Not saying they succeeded but still.)
cryptoguy
Extremely low. This was at the very end of construction, and the
contractors were in court and being watched very closely.
Of course, they may have raised their prices for the *next* contract.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> "One bus" can't do the job. This is Keith again failing to
> comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
> dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
> Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
-- and that's assuming there's a straight road that goes directly
between your home and your office that you can drive on, and that this
road is at 45 degree angles to the roads that the buses go on. In
general if this angle is X, the ratio is cos(X) + sin(X), which never
exceeds the square root of two.
If there isn't any such road, and you have to drive on the same grid
of roads as the buses, then the time ratio is one-to-one.
Okay, there's some delay due to the time waiting for the two buses
and the time waiting for passengers to board and disembark en route
(if the latter isn't done while stopped at a red light), but that
would be more than compensated for by the fact that the buses could go
at the speed limit, rather than inching along stuck in heavy traffic.
(I am of course assuming that there are few cars since the buses are
much faster and more convenient.)
Quit with the "failing to comprehend." It adds nothing. I don't mind
disagreement, but I'm sick and tired of the non-stop personal attacks.
> Keith has told me that his public-transport-enabled commute takes
> him 60-90 minutes, each way.
That includes walking to and from the Metro station, which takes 30
minutes each way. There's a bus I could take to the station instead,
but I need the exercise, and the bus costs money.
That also includes doubling back, i.e. starting by riding in the
opposite direction, in order to be able to get a seat, as is necessary
due to the incompetently poor level of service on Metro. If I didn't
mind standing, I could usually skip that step. (Not always --
sometimes there isn't even standing room.) But except when I'm in a
great hurry I'd rather spend an hour seated, reading, than half an
hour standing and unable to read or do anything else useful.
When Metro was originally sold to the public, they touted 90-second
headways and eight-car trains as soon as passenger volume warrants it.
There never were any 90-second headways. The shortest I've seen,
except when delays caused trains to "stack up," is about four minutes.
It was standing room only for years before they added the first
eight-car trains, and they're still rare. And according to
http://wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4191
they plan to discontinue all eight-car trains *and* increase headways
next year, to save money. Sheesh! The system could easily have been
so much better.
> However, non-driving City of Boston residents benefit greatly from
> it; it took an aging and very ugly elevated highway, and dropped
> it below ground. The area above it is now a broad boulevard, with
> local streets at the edges, and a nice park running along the
> center. A non-driver like you would like it;
Quite possibly. But is it worth 22 thousand million dollars? I can
think of lots of things I'd like much better even if this park was
next door to me, that would cost far less. I'm sure you can too.
> aren't you always complaining about highways cutting you off from
> places?
Elevated highways don't cut people off; ground-level highways do.
They replaced something that didn't interfere with walking with
something else that didn't interfere with walking.
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "One bus" can't do the job. This is Keith again failing to
> > comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
> > dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
> > Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
>
> The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
to get anywhere.
QED.
pt
netcat
fa12bf...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, treif...@gmail.com says...
I wouldn't be so sure. The city transit I take every day (trolleybuses,
trams, buses) average a stop every 1-2 minutes. And they get where
they're going alright, with decent speed.
rgds,
netcat
cryptoguy
> In article <d1f840c7-d328-420d-a0b7-
> fa12bf4e6...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, treifam...@gmail.com says...
>
> > On Dec 20, 5:51 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > > cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "One bus" can't do the job. This is Keith again failing to
> > > > comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
> > > > dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
> > > > Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
>
> > > The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
> > [long, missing-the-point explanation deleted]
>
> > Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
> > to get anywhere.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. The city transit I take every day (trolleybuses,
> trams, buses) average a stop every 1-2 minutes. And they get where
> they're going alright, with decent speed.
That's in an urban area, for relatively low values of 'get anywhere'.
We were discussing replacing car use in the suburbs, for suburb-to-
suburb commutes. Note that we specified '50 dispersed people'
Of course, once you pick them up, they have to be dropped off at '50
dispersed destinations' as well.
pt
Wayne Throop
: Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
: to get anywhere.
Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly.
Might even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the
extra exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>: cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com>
>: Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
>: to get anywhere.
>
>Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
>and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
>five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly.
>Might even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the
>extra exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
But how do you speed up the ones coming *in* the door? Catapults?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
::: to get anywhere.
:: Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety
:: helmet, and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds.
:: Lose maybe five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate
:: briskly. Might even roll through some of the stops that way. And
:: people need the extra exercise and practice in falling correctly
:: anyway, so it's win/win.
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: But how do you speed up the ones coming *in* the door? Catapults?
Well there you go. But maybe not needed; I have heard that Tokyo
has subway pushers to get dense packing, so perhaps bus stop coaches
would work.
"OK people, here comes the bus, get ready... NOW GO, GO GO,
HUSSLE HUSSLE, MY GRANDMOTHER CAN BOARD FASTER THAN THAT!!"
Could probably be made an automated message.
Get Patrick Warburton to do the recording.
Richard D. Latham
> For a real-world example: I live in an area with fairly good public
> transportation (Ann Arbor). My daily commute by car is fifteen minutes
> one way. My daily commute by bus (which I've done on occasion) is a
> minimum of two hours one way, often closer to 2.5. This does not
> incline me to give up my car.
>
Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours by
public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
"fairly good public transportation".
--
#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
cryptoguy
> On 2009-12-21, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:20:41 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> > wrote:
>
> >>: cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com>
> >>: Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
> >>: to get anywhere.
>
> >>Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
> >>and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
> >>five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly.
> >>Might even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the
> >>extra exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
>
> > But how do you speed up the ones coming *in* the door? Catapults?
>
> reasonable shape (and why would we want grannies on public transport
> instead of behind the wheel of a car?) the bus would only have to slow
> down to about fifteen miles per hour. It would be mildly uncomfortable
> in winter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Back when I lived in London, they still had open-platform doubledecker
"Routemaster" buses. They were pretty handy for hopping on and off.
They were also dangerous.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/81/12/811270_7c95da91.jpg
pt
John F. Eldredge
Big nets that extend out on arms from the side of the bus, and then
rotate inward to dump you into a catch-basin. That way, the bus never
needs to come to a complete stop.
--
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
John F. Eldredge
> Open sides and some handles. I estimate that for most people in
> reasonable shape (and why would we want grannies on public transport
> instead of behind the wheel of a car?) the bus would only have to slow
> down to about fifteen miles per hour. It would be mildly uncomfortable
> in winter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
And, if the occasional person stumbles and ends up under the bus wheels,
just think of it as survival of the fittest.
John F. Eldredge
> For a real-world example: I live in an area with fairly good public
> transportation (Ann Arbor). My daily commute by car is fifteen minutes
> one way. My daily commute by bus (which I've done on occasion) is a
> minimum of two hours one way, often closer to 2.5. This does not
> incline me to give up my car.
This has been my experience with trying to bus-commute in Nashville,
Tennessee, as well. Not only are all the bus routes on a hub-and-spoke
scheme, but their arrival at the hub is not well-coordinated either.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> : cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com>
> : Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
> : to get anywhere.
>
> Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
> and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
> five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly.
> Might even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the
> extra exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
>
A similar discussion prompted me to describe the "nitro-burning funny
car" bus.
Bill Snyder
<jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:36:54 -0600, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:20:41 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>: cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com>
>>>: Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it :
>>>to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
>>>and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
>>>five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly. Might
>>>even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the extra
>>>exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
>>
>> But how do you speed up the ones coming *in* the door? Catapults?
>
>Big nets that extend out on arms from the side of the bus, and then
>rotate inward to dump you into a catch-basin. That way, the bus never
>needs to come to a complete stop.
Hm, yes, and if you put those toward the front, and the exit door
in the rear, you can load and unload simultaneously.
John Francis
Richard D. Latham <lat...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On 2009-12-21, cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 5:51�pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > "One bus" can't do the job. �This is Keith again failing to
>>>> > comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. �To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
>>>> > dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
>>>> > Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
>>>>
>>>> The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
>>> [long, missing-the-point explanation deleted]
>>>
>>> Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
>>> to get anywhere.
>>
>> For a real-world example: I live in an area with fairly good public
>> transportation (Ann Arbor). My daily commute by car is fifteen minutes
>> one way. My daily commute by bus (which I've done on occasion) is a
>> minimum of two hours one way, often closer to 2.5. This does not
>> incline me to give up my car.
>>
>
>Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours by
>public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
>"fairly good public transportation".
On a scale that includes, say, Europe, no. But compared to most American
cities it doesn't sound too bad.
We live in Silicon Valley. My wife works around 20 miles away. Outside
rush hours her commute takes maybe 25 minutes, and it didn't take much
longer when I worked close to where she did, and so we could carpool.
Now she has to drive solo, and even timeshifting to avoid peak hours
the commute usually takes closer to 40 minutes (and has occasionally
taken twice that). We live close to a light rail station, and there
is also one close to where she works (with the possibility of a shuttle
bus to get her the last couple of miles), so we looked into what it
would take to commute by rail. 2.5 hours would be optimistic; the one
or two times I've done it to meet her for an after-work even it's taken
me at least that long.
Compared to Europe (or even to Boston) the trains are infrequent, and
the route network is sparse.
There *is* a faster, more direct rail service between where we live
and where she works, but only before 7:00 in the morning. After that
she would have to drive almost into downtown San Jose (heavy traffic),
and find somewhere to park (close to the station, which is difficult;
all the handicapped pasrking fills up very early). Allowing only an
hour for the total commute would be wildly optimistic.
Wayne Throop
:: the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe five minutes out
:: of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly.
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: A similar discussion prompted me to describe
: the "nitro-burning funny car" bus.
I think there was one of those in one of the Mad Max movies.
cryptoguy
> On 2009-12-21, Richard D. Latham <lath...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul Arthur <floweryson...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> On 2009-12-21, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 20, 5:51 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>>> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> > "One bus" can't do the job. This is Keith again failing to
> >>>> > comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. To transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
> >>>> > dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
> >>>> > Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
>
> >>>> The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
> >>> [long, missing-the-point explanation deleted]
>
> >>> Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
> >>> to get anywhere.
>
> >> For a real-world example: I live in an area with fairly good public
> >> transportation (Ann Arbor). My daily commute by car is fifteen minutes
> >> one way. My daily commute by bus (which I've done on occasion) is a
> >> minimum of two hours one way, often closer to 2.5. This does not
> >> incline me to give up my car.
>
> > Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours by
> > public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
> > "fairly good public transportation".
>
> and my workplace is on another, while the direct driving route is
> entirely outside the bus routes. For people in the core of the system,
> it's much better. If there were a bus running along the route I
> normally drive, it'd probably only take twenty to thirty minutes.
> But that wouldn't happen; even if they instituted a bus from where I
> live to where I work it would have to be routed so it actually went
> by other people and destinations, instead of driving through the more
> rural area like I do.
That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
half the jobs are now in the suburbs, in low density office and
industrial complexes. The people who work at them, for the most part,
do *not* live nearby; some may live in the city center for the
cultural amenities, most live in other suburbs outside the center, and
some (like me) have moved even further out into the rural areas. With
so few destinations in common, hub and spoke systems just become
impractical. Most people would rather spend 45 minutes driving than 2
1/2 hours on a various buses and trains.
pt
> --
> I don't think I have anything to add about Mass Effect except that
> it's the only game I've played where you can have lesbian sex
> without meaning to.
> --Matt Boyd on threepanelsoul.com
David Scheidt
:That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
:anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, you can go arrest the majority of the United States and change
all of it, just as soon as you have the trillions of dollars and the
manpower to do it all.
Until then, calling it "criminal" is silly. It's not going to change
any time soon (with "soon" being "less than 50-100 years").
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> reasonable shape (and why would we want grannies on public transport
> instead of behind the wheel of a car?) the bus would only have to slow
> down to about fifteen miles per hour. It would be mildly uncomfortable
> in winter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll
Wayne Throop
:: reasonable shape (and why would we want grannies on public transport
:: instead of behind the wheel of a car?) the bus would only have to
:: slow down to about fifteen miles per hour. It would be mildly
:: uncomfortable in winter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
: "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net>
: Better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel
For postsingularity/nanotech version of such moving road surfaces, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Fall_of_Night
Wayne Throop
:: anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com>
: quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
What's the crime, exactly?
David Scheidt
::: That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
::: anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
:: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com>
:: quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
:What's the crime, exactly?
Murder. Car centric society has killed millions.
--
sig 45
John F. Eldredge
All forms of transportation have their risks; a horse can trample a
pedestrian, or a horse-drawn vehicle can run over someone. Quite a few
people have died in train wrecks over the years. Describing the use of
automobiles as "murder" is a rather strong overstatement.
Wayne Throop
:::: anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
::: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com>
::: quite a lot of us understand that
::: quite well, and think it criminal.
:: What's the crime, exactly?
: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com>
: Murder. Car centric society has killed millions.
So. Sky diving must be murder also?
Feeding somebody a high-fat high-sugar diet must be murder?
You should start an underground railroad, to rescue the citizens
and send them... um... where exactly? Anyways, it'd be mass transit.
Millions of people being taken somewhere in railcars; what could go wrong?
David Scheidt
:On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:29:38 +0000, David Scheidt wrote:
:> In alt.folklore.urban Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote: ::: That's
:> my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for ::: anyone'
:> crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
:>
:> :: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> :: quite a lot of us understand
:> that quite well, and think it criminal.
:>
:> :What's the crime, exactly?
:>
:> Murder. Car centric society has killed millions.
:All forms of transportation have their risks; a horse can trample a
:pedestrian, or a horse-drawn vehicle can run over someone. Quite a few
:people have died in train wrecks over the years. Describing the use of
:automobiles as "murder" is a rather strong overstatement.
I'm unaware of any wars fought to preserve the horse drawn vehicle.
I'm aware of quite a few, killing many, many people, over the
preservation of the automobile.
--
sig 65
Wayne Throop
: I'm unaware of any wars fought to preserve the horse drawn vehicle.
: I'm aware of quite a few, killing many, many people, over the
: preservation of the automobile.
I'm unaware of any. Name some of those you "know" about.
Keith F. Lynch
Murder requires intent. Car-centric society is grossly inefficient,
destructive, and dysfunctional on numerous levels, but nobody has the
intent to kill.
Metrorail was back to normal this morning after Saturday's two-foot
snowfall. Unfortunately, the bus that runs from here to Metro is not
running. I usually walk rather than take the bus -- I've only taken
that bus twice this year -- but today was not at all a good day for
walking. The sidewalks are all under about four feet of irregular
soft snow thanks to plows, making them utterly unusable. So you have
to walk in the street. This wasn't too bad on Saturday, when there
was almost no car traffic and what little there was was driving not
much faster than walking speed. But today cars were actually going
*faster* than normal, since about two thirds of car commuters stayed
home, meaning that for once the roads weren't way over design capacity
during rush hour. And though the traffic lanes of roads are completely
clear of snow and ice, the shoulders are not. So you have to walk
inches from cars going 30 miles per hour or faster, one every few
seconds. It's dangerous as hell.
By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds of
someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that they
could be held directly responsible. Typical.
> So. Sky diving must be murder also? Feeding somebody a high-fat
> high-sugar diet must be murder?
Nobody is required to skydive. Nobody is required to consume a bad
diet, as healthful foods are available and are no more expensive.
A better analogy is smoking. Until about twenty years ago, if you
wanted to work or shop or go to social events, you were pretty much
forced to inhale large amounts of tobacco smoke. This has quite
rightly changed. No adult is forbidden from smoking, but they are
forbidden from forcing others to breathe their smoke. And they pay
high cigarette taxes intended to cover the social costs of smoking
rather than forcing non-smokers to subsidize them.
I am not anti-car, I am pro-choice. Nobody should be forced to drive
just because they want to get somewhere. And nobody should be placed
at significant risk of serious injury by motorists.
If tens of thousands of pedestrians each year were seriously injured,
and thousands killed, by falling skydivers, then I'd say that the way
skydiving was done was deeply dysfunctional.
Now that smoking around non-consenting others has been pretty
much ended, the only action that places non-consenting people at
significant risk is driving.
> You should start an underground railroad, to rescue the citizens and
> send them... um... where exactly? Anyways, it'd be mass transit.
> Millions of people being taken somewhere in railcars; what could go
> wrong?
Godwin's law; discussion over; you lose.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Wayne Throop
: Nobody is required to skydive. Nobody is required to consume a bad
: diet, as healthful foods are available and are no more expensive.
And you frequently point out that nobody is required to use cars.
It's a matter of convenience.
: A better analogy is smoking. Until about twenty years ago, if you
: wanted to work or shop or go to social events, you were pretty much
: forced to inhale large amounts of tobacco smoke. This has quite
: rightly changed.
And yet, even at its worst, you weren't really required to inhale
that smoke. One chose to do so rather than pursuing a lifestyle
that avoided it.
Mind you, yes, there's an issue of how much trouble one must go to to
avoid something. But consider a bad diet. It's more like smoking than
you see to imply, because while it is *possible* to find healthful foods
at no particular extra cost, but it costs you extra effort that most
people don't need to go to. The only thing keepting people from eating
better diets is how much trouble they are willing to go to to do it.
And same with cars. There are differences in degree, but not enough
quantity to give it a quality all its own imo.
David DeLaney
>:: That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
>:: anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
>
>: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com>
>: quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
>
>What's the crime, exactly?
"But ... what's his crime?"
<Significant Glance from Frank>
"You did right. Society ... MUST be protected!"
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
>and thousands killed, by falling skydivers, then I'd say that the way
>skydiving was done was deeply dysfunctional.
...aaaand now I'm envisioning this thread in the history where we DO have
flying cars. And buses. "Oh sure, just drop me off here..."
>> You should start an underground railroad, to rescue the citizens and
>> send them... um... where exactly? Anyways, it'd be mass transit.
>> Millions of people being taken somewhere in railcars; what could go
>> wrong?
>
>Godwin's law; discussion over; you lose.
It's not invocable implicitly, you know. His intent was clearly "if mass
transit bad, and this is mass transit, then..." You can pack a reference
into your sentence without tripping over the Law.
Keith F. Lynch
> That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
> anyone' crowd
Who would that be? Are you sure you're not mischaracterizing those
of us who believe that people should have choices as believing the
exact opposite?
> fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas, half the
> jobs are now in the suburbs, in low density office and industrial
> complexes. The people who work at them, for the most part, do *not*
> live nearby; some may live in the city center for the cultural
> amenities, most live in other suburbs outside the center, and some
> (like me) have moved even further out into the rural areas.
Yes, and I've responded to that point innumerable times.
> With so few destinations in common, hub and spoke systems just
> become impractical.
Which is why I've never suggested such a system. Nor has anyone else
in this thread that I've noticed.
> Most people would rather spend 45 minutes driving than 2 1/2 hours
> on a various buses and trains.
Those wouldn't be the only alternatives if the transit system was
competently run. And buses wouldn't be so slow if traffic wasn't
so heavy. And traffic wouldn't be heavy except that transit is so
bad, forcing people to drive instead, which is of course grossly
inefficient and pushes roads way over capacity, slowing down not
just fellow car drivers, but buses too.
Keith F. Lynch
> by public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
> "fairly good public transportation".
Indeed. As I pointed out yesterday, the ratio should never be more
than the square root of two plus the wait time for two buses. So with
a bus every five minutes on each major road, transit shouldn't take
more than 30 minutes if a car takes 15. And that's assuming the best
case for the car: A traffic-free road going directly from home to
work, at a 45 degree angle to all other roads, and no buses on that
traffic-free road.
Keith F. Lynch
>>> Millions of people being taken somewhere in railcars; what could
>>> go wrong?
>> Godwin's law; discussion over; you lose.
> It's not invocable implicitly, you know. His intent was clearly "if
> mass transit bad, and this is mass transit, then..." You can pack a
> reference into your sentence without tripping over the Law.
Ah, plausible deniability. "I didn't mean *those* railcars!"
"But doctor, *you're* the one with all the dirty pictures!"
Mike Ash
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:36:54 -0600, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:20:41 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>: cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com>
> >>: Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it :
> >>to get anywhere.
> >>
> >>Well sure you can. Just issue knee and ankle pads and a safety helmet,
> >>and push them out the door. Get rolling again in seconds. Lose maybe
> >>five minutes out of the hour, if you brake and accelerate briskly. Might
> >>even roll through some of the stops that way. And people need the extra
> >>exercise and practice in falling correctly anyway, so it's win/win.
> >
> > But how do you speed up the ones coming *in* the door? Catapults?
>
> Big nets that extend out on arms from the side of the bus, and then
> rotate inward to dump you into a catch-basin. That way, the bus never
> needs to come to a complete stop.
Think skyhook, but smaller scale. A large arm rotates out from the bus,
moving backwards at a speed which makes it come to a standstill right as
it reaches the commuter. He steps onto the platform, grabs the handhold,
is picked up by the giant robot arm, or whatever device you prefer, and
it then rotates back on to the bus.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Kurt Busiek
Way too delicate. Skyhooks, sure. But platforms that come to a
standstill? Nah. Backpacks that have a pole projecting upward to a
sturdy wire loop above the head.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Mike Ash
wrote:
I prefer the giant robot arm, but I find the backpack proposal to also
be acceptable.
Kurt Busiek
Giant robot arm is fine, as long as it doesn't mess around with
sissy-ass relative-motionless stand-on platforms. Giant robot
clutching hand to grab those pedestrians the bus software has
identified as likely passengers as it careens through the city, and
stuff them into the bus through the roof access hatch. "Nom nom nom"
sound effects are optional but recommended.
Wayne Throop
: Who would that be? Are you sure you're not mischaracterizing those
: of us who believe that people should have choices as believing the
: exact opposite?
So... the government should invest in choices that, by themselves,
wouldn't compete? Like, say, Amtrak?
Yeah yeah, I know, government policy is what rendered passenger service
unprofitable. But note that the government policy, naict from this
thread and minimal poking around, had to do with various forms of
cargo; passengers were only profitable as a side-line.
Yeah, yeah, I know "but they spend so much more on roadway
infrastructure". But, roadway infrastructure can be used for mass
transit, and many many other things, but the reverse is not always true.
So it hardly seems inappropriate, especially when the large majority
prefer individual transport if they can even remotely afford it.
Even in places like New York City, the poster child for "inconvenient to
own a car", ime, as soon as they can afford it, people get cars Maybe not
"most", but "many, many". It's just that in NYC, "they can afford it"
includes money for storage/parking, and is traded off against fewer
opportunities for use. But *even* *so*, cars are owned and operated
by NYCans.
: Those wouldn't be the only alternatives if the transit system was
: competently run. And buses wouldn't be so slow if traffic wasn't so
: heavy.
Your claim is that people would flock to buses if only they weren't so
mismanaged, and then crowding would go down? Doesn't seem a likely model.
The fact is, as many people as possibly can will try private transport,
and so offering excellent bus service won't drive down crowding much.
Of course, giving buses preferred access to some lanes of traffic, access
points and entryways, stops for boarding and unboarding, can speed
up buses even in the face of considerable crowding. And when this is
done (as I've seen it done in several states), people still drive their
own cars. Basically, even the best bus service can't compete with cars
for convenience.
Yeah, yeah, you like to list lots of ways one can get by without cars,
and you pooh-pooh the inconveniences, saying things like "oh, but folks
need exercise". But these dismissals and pooh-pooh-ings don't change
the fact that it's inconvenient to schedule around bus routes, both
spatially and temporally.
And you can argue that those people are misguided all you want,
but without coercion or extreme poverty, *most* people don't give up
driving cars. Or extreme affluence, I suppose. "I have a limo, ride in
the back", etc.
You can tilt at the automobile windmill all you want, but when it gets
right down to it, you are basically arguing that people shouldn't want
what in fact they want. But thing is, you don't really get to tell
people what they can want and not want, and that's often a good thing.
cryptoguy
> In alt.folklore.urban John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> :On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:29:38 +0000, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> :> my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for ::: anyone'
> :> crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
> :>
> :> that quite well, and think it criminal.
> :>
> :> :What's the crime, exactly?
> :>
> :> Murder. Car centric society has killed millions.
>
> :All forms of transportation have their risks; a horse can trample a
> :pedestrian, or a horse-drawn vehicle can run over someone. Quite a few
> :people have died in train wrecks over the years. Describing the use of
> :automobiles as "murder" is a rather strong overstatement.
>
> I'm unaware of any wars fought to preserve the horse drawn vehicle.
> I'm aware of quite a few, killing many, many people, over the
> preservation of the automobile.
Go read 'The Ballad of East and West"
pt
Wayne Throop
: Indeed. As I pointed out yesterday, the ratio should never be more
: than the square root of two plus the wait time for two buses. So with
: a bus every five minutes on each major road, transit shouldn't take
: more than 30 minutes if a car takes 15. And that's assuming the best
: case for the car: A traffic-free road going directly from home to
: work, at a 45 degree angle to all other roads, and no buses on that
: traffic-free road.
How close together are these "major roads", and how often do the buses
stop? If the bus is going to be stopping every mile on roads spaced a
mile apart, that's ten extra minutes tacked onto every trip, and every
trip will have many stops where cars to streaming past, outperforming
the bus, when compared to the typical suburbia model of driving to an
industrial park. Or for that matter, my father driving to the facility
he worked in, which had both factory and engineering jobs. Interestingly,
since most folks had their own cars, they could find all the people
who lived moderately close and worked in the same or a nearby facility,
and carpool. Further reducing any benefit buses might have, at the
cost of less inconvenience than buses would be.
Basically, cars are the cellphones of the 1950s, the killer app of the
recent industrial age (as opposed to the information age). You can do
without them, but pretty much most folks don't. So, you can mutter and
grumble all you want, but in the aggregate, people are still going to
use cars, and they are still going to use cellphones, whenever they can.
(And of course, your model only applies in a dense rectangular grid.
Which doesn't really match commuting patterns, naict; being able to
more independently choose residence and workplace within broader limits
than just "in the same heavily serviced area" is *valuable* to people,
so your model has to account for methods of getting from one heavily
serviced rectangular grid to an arbitrary other one, which makes the
problem somewhat skew towards cars, who would have guessed.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In alt.folklore.urban John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> :On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:29:38 +0000, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> :> In alt.folklore.urban Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote: ::: That's
> :> my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for ::: anyone'
> :> crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
> :>
> :> :: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> :: quite a lot of us understand
> :> that quite well, and think it criminal.
> :>
> :> :What's the crime, exactly?
> :>
> :> Murder. Car centric society has killed millions.
>
> :All forms of transportation have their risks; a horse can trample a
> :pedestrian, or a horse-drawn vehicle can run over someone. Quite a few
> :people have died in train wrecks over the years. Describing the use of
> :automobiles as "murder" is a rather strong overstatement.
>
> I'm unaware of any wars fought to preserve the horse drawn vehicle.
> I'm aware of quite a few, killing many, many people, over the
> preservation of the automobile.
>
I'm aware of none. If you attempt to point to any war in, say, the
middle east as "fought to preserve the automobile", I will point and laugh.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
cryptoguy
Out in the areas which I'm discussing, which are largely terra
incognita to Keith, traffic isn't the problem. Indeed, the lack of
traffic problems is a defining characteristic; if you get traffic
jams, it isn't rural enough. The fact that he thinks traffic is the
issue demonstrates that he doesn't understand what I'm talking about.
Lets's take the *best* case scenario of my commutes over the past 20
years, when I worked at BBN in Cambridge. 45 miles on the odometer, it
took me about an hour to drive, often less.
To get there as much as possible by public transit, I'd have to
1. Get to the station in Fitchburg - 15 minutes by car. There is no
bus.
2. Ride the train to Porter Square. 1:23. Departure 7:20AM
3. Transfer to T - 5 minutes.
4. Wait for Red Line - unknown
5. Ride to Alewife - 10 minutes (this leg is going OUTWARDS from
Boston, due to the hub and spoke design).
6. Wait for BBN shuttle - up to 15 minutes.
7. Ride shuttle to BBN - 5 min.
So, if I made all connections *perfectly*, I'd get to work only a
couple minutes late, leaving the house about 7AM. In reality, add
another 15-30 minutes waiting for connections, and use an earlier
train, which is at 7AM or 6:40, so I'm leaving at 6:40 or 6:20 AM.
Compare this to driving, where I leave around 8AM, and am at work by
9.
I get 2+ hours each day back by driving.
... and thats at the most mass-trans friendly of the commutes I've had
over the last 20 years. When I lived in Manhattan, and would have had
to pay for parking at both ends, it was easy to justify using the
subway. In my other commutes here in MA, you'd have had to add another
30-45 minutes for mass transit, since I'd have had to use an MBTA bus
from Alewife, to Burlington, or Bedford, or wherever I was working at
the time.
On one job I was on, our QA guy was carless. The only way I could get
him to work late to meet a deadline was to personally drive him 20
minutes into Alewife, where the T began.
pt
cryptoguy
> Richard D. Latham <lath...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours
> > by public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
> > "fairly good public transportation".
>
> Indeed. As I pointed out yesterday, the ratio should never be more
> than the square root of two plus the wait time for two buses. So with
> a bus every five minutes on each major road, transit shouldn't take
> more than 30 minutes if a car takes 15. And that's assuming the best
> case for the car: A traffic-free road going directly from home to
> work, at a 45 degree angle to all other roads, and no buses on that
> traffic-free road.
How nice. Sadly, the rest of us have to live in the real world. I gave
you a worked example in a nearby post, where I showed that even my
most transit-friendly commute would take around twice as long by mass
transit.
pt
Mike Ash
wrote:
> On 2009-12-21 20:19:29 -0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
>
> > In article <hgpgt6$fqn$2...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-12-21 20:00:03 -0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
> >>
> >>> Think skyhook, but smaller scale. A large arm rotates out from the bus,
> >>> moving backwards at a speed which makes it come to a standstill right as
> >>> it reaches the commuter. He steps onto the platform, grabs the handhold,
> >>> is picked up by the giant robot arm, or whatever device you prefer, and
> >>> it then rotates back on to the bus.
> >>
> >> Way too delicate. Skyhooks, sure. But platforms that come to a
> >> standstill? Nah. Backpacks that have a pole projecting upward to a
> >> sturdy wire loop above the head.
> >
> > I prefer the giant robot arm, but I find the backpack proposal to also
> > be acceptable.
>
> Giant robot arm is fine, as long as it doesn't mess around with
> sissy-ass relative-motionless stand-on platforms. Giant robot
> clutching hand to grab those pedestrians the bus software has
> identified as likely passengers as it careens through the city, and
> stuff them into the bus through the roof access hatch. "Nom nom nom"
> sound effects are optional but recommended.
Stuffing them in through a hinged front would be even better. You can
eject them out the rear, at just the right speed so that their speed
relative to the road is zero.
Kurt Busiek
Or should be, but the bus software's a little hitchy.
Plus: Loud buttocky flatulent noise FX on passenger departure.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
Dimensional Traveler
this discussion. :D
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
David DeLaney
>> Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours
>> by public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
>> "fairly good public transportation".
>
>Indeed. As I pointed out yesterday, the ratio should never be more
>than the square root of two plus the wait time for two buses. So with
>a bus every five minutes on each major road,
... you don't get that density of buses except on the core lines. Try "a bus
every half-hour during the day, and every hour during the evening, changing
at somewhere between 4pm and 6pm, and if you're LUCKY going till midnight.
And nothing between midnight and about 6am", which is much closer to the
schedule for the main off-core lines of buses in various cities.
If you have lots of routes, then the spacing between buses ON each route goes
way up. We're looking at actual instances of bus, where you're looking at
theoretical.
Strobe
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>David Scheidt wrote:
>> In alt.folklore.urban cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> :That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
>> :anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
>>
>> quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
>>
>
> Well, you can go arrest the majority of the United States and change
>all of it, just as soon as you have the trillions of dollars and the
>manpower to do it all.
>
> Until then, calling it "criminal" is silly. It's not going to change
>any time soon (with "soon" being "less than 50-100 years").
Barring external forces - such as a prolonged shortage of imported fuel, and the
resultant sky-high prices. And, eventually, rationing - fuel only for food
trucking.
If you've been following the news from around the big oil patch in the Mid East,
such an event is not inconceivable.
Canth
Francis) wrote:
>In article <3a342p...@verizon.net>,
>Richard D. Latham <lat...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-12-21, cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 20, 5:510m, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > "One bus" can't do the job. his is Keith again failing to
>>>>> > comprehend that TWIAVBP[1]. o transfer 50 dispersed people to 50
>>>>> > dispersed jobsites, all within an hour, can't be done with one bus.
>>>>> > Force them to make transfers, and the time doubles.
>>>>>
>>>>> The time would increase by at most a factor of the square root of two
>>>> [long, missing-the-point explanation deleted]
>>>>
>>>> Keith, you can't stop a bus 50 times in one hour, and also expect it
>>>> to get anywhere.
>>>
>>> For a real-world example: I live in an area with fairly good public
>>> transportation (Ann Arbor). My daily commute by car is fifteen minutes
>>> one way. My daily commute by bus (which I've done on occasion) is a
>>> minimum of two hours one way, often closer to 2.5. This does not
>>> incline me to give up my car.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I wouldn't have characterized an area where it takes 2.5 hours by
>>public transport to travel what takes 15 minutes by car as having
>>"fairly good public transportation".
>
>On a scale that includes, say, Europe, no. But compared to most American
>cities it doesn't sound too bad.
>
>We live in Silicon Valley. My wife works around 20 miles away. Outside
>rush hours her commute takes maybe 25 minutes, and it didn't take much
>longer when I worked close to where she did, and so we could carpool.
>Now she has to drive solo, and even timeshifting to avoid peak hours
>the commute usually takes closer to 40 minutes (and has occasionally
>taken twice that). We live close to a light rail station, and there
>is also one close to where she works (with the possibility of a shuttle
>bus to get her the last couple of miles), so we looked into what it
>would take to commute by rail. 2.5 hours would be optimistic; the one
>or two times I've done it to meet her for an after-work even it's taken
>me at least that long.
>
>Compared to Europe (or even to Boston) the trains are infrequent, and
>the route network is sparse.
>
>There *is* a faster, more direct rail service between where we live
>and where she works, but only before 7:00 in the morning. After that
>she would have to drive almost into downtown San Jose (heavy traffic),
>and find somewhere to park (close to the station, which is difficult;
>all the handicapped pasrking fills up very early). Allowing only an
>hour for the total commute would be wildly optimistic.
Hmm. We did some analysis before buying. When I worked at the
office, during peak hour, car was 1.5 to 2.5hrs home to office &
reverse - if I could find parking nearby. Train was 55 minutes, plus
five minutes to the station (plenty of parking) & five minute walk
from the station to the office. Service every 12 minutes during peak
period. This was one of the criteria when looking for a house.
I well understand cities & transport - one of the interesting things
here is that one ticket allows travel on different forms of public
transport - bus, train & tram - during its active period. An all day
ticket basically allows transport anywhere & is reasonably cheap,
particularly in bulk. I know there are many areas where public
transport is many times slower than car, particularly when needing to
use a number of different conveyances.
.
AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
There are other solutions which involve, if necessary, MAKING the fuel.
Which we would use. And if forced into it, we'd do it in a way that kept
it affordable, if more expensive, because it would be vastly more
expensive to try to change the country to NOT use it. The ideal is
probably lots of nuke plants which would then manufacture gasoline,etc.
as an energy carrier. Why gasoline? It has a great energy density and we
already have a huge infrastructure designed to transport and distribute
it down to the individual level.
cryptoguy
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:30:52 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
>
>
>
>
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >David Scheidt wrote:
>
> >> :That's my point. Many of the 'mass transit should be enough for
> >> :anyone' crowd fail to appreciate that, for many american urban areas,
>
> >> quite a lot of us understand that quite well, and think it criminal.
>
> > Well, you can go arrest the majority of the United States and change
> >all of it, just as soon as you have the trillions of dollars and the
> >manpower to do it all.
>
> > Until then, calling it "criminal" is silly. It's not going to change
> >any time soon (with "soon" being "less than 50-100 years").
>
> Barring external forces - such as a prolonged shortage of imported fuel, and the
> resultant sky-high prices. And, eventually, rationing - fuel only for food
> trucking.
>
> If you've been following the news from around the big oil patch in the Mid East,
> such an event is not inconceivable.
In which case, along with a very gradual migration back to the cities,
we're going to see serious work on alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in
electrics, and a rising popularity of motorbikes for commuting. Not to
mention telecommuting: I've already worked places where a substantial
fraction of employees worked from home or a remote office on a regular
basis.
Don't assume things will go back to how they used to be, with the
suburbs returned to field and forest.
pt
John F. Eldredge
"No! No! I didn't want to get on the bus! I was waiting to cross the
street!"
--
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
John F. Eldredge
... Where they will get creamed by the next vehicle.
R H Draney
>
>In which case, along with a very gradual migration back to the cities,
>we're going to see serious work on alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in
>electrics, and a rising popularity of motorbikes for commuting. Not to
>mention telecommuting: I've already worked places where a substantial
>fraction of employees worked from home or a remote office on a regular
>basis.
That'll never work...how would the suits keep you from playing Freecell?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Warren Oates
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> As if no one died for the sake of the railroads, too.
>
Indeed. Talk to the descendants of the the Chinese who built the
railways in western Canada.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
Mike Ash
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> cryptoguy filted:
> >
> >In which case, along with a very gradual migration back to the cities,
> >we're going to see serious work on alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in
> >electrics, and a rising popularity of motorbikes for commuting. Not to
> >mention telecommuting: I've already worked places where a substantial
> >fraction of employees worked from home or a remote office on a regular
> >basis.
>
> That'll never work...how would the suits keep you from playing Freecell?...r
I play games a lot during work time, actually.
I also work a lot during game time. The company wins as much from this
arrangement as it loses.
My company has 8 people total, of which I've met only 3. Full-on virtual
companies and telecommuting are here now, and completely practical (for
some types of work, and some people).
Mike Ash
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:25:57 -0800, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
> > On 2009-12-21 20:19:29 -0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
> >
> >> In article <hgpgt6$fqn$2...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2009-12-21 20:00:03 -0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>> Think skyhook, but smaller scale. A large arm rotates out from the
> >>>> bus, moving backwards at a speed which makes it come to a standstill
> >>>> right as it reaches the commuter. He steps onto the platform, grabs
> >>>> the handhold, is picked up by the giant robot arm, or whatever device
> >>>> you prefer, and it then rotates back on to the bus.
> >>>
> >>> Way too delicate. Skyhooks, sure. But platforms that come to a
> >>> standstill? Nah. Backpacks that have a pole projecting upward to a
> >>> sturdy wire loop above the head.
> >>
> >> I prefer the giant robot arm, but I find the backpack proposal to also
> >> be acceptable.
> >
> > Giant robot arm is fine, as long as it doesn't mess around with
> > sissy-ass relative-motionless stand-on platforms. Giant robot clutching
> > hand to grab those pedestrians the bus software has identified as likely
> > passengers as it careens through the city, and stuff them into the bus
> > through the roof access hatch. "Nom nom nom" sound effects are optional
> > but recommended.
>
> "No! No! I didn't want to get on the bus! I was waiting to cross the
> street!"
Incredibly Dangerous Robotic Bus Services assumes no liability for
injuries sustained once the passenger departs the confines of our busses.
cryptoguy
> In article <hgqngi01...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > cryptoguy filted:
>
> > >In which case, along with a very gradual migration back to the cities,
> > >we're going to see serious work on alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in
> > >electrics, and a rising popularity of motorbikes for commuting. Not to
> > >mention telecommuting: I've already worked places where a substantial
> > >fraction of employees worked from home or a remote office on a regular
> > >basis.
>
> > That'll never work...how would the suits keep you from playing Freecell?...r
>
> I play games a lot during work time, actually.
>
> I also work a lot during game time. The company wins as much from this
> arrangement as it loses.
>
> My company has 8 people total, of which I've met only 3. Full-on virtual
> companies and telecommuting are here now, and completely practical (for
> some types of work, and some people).
At one company I worked, *everyone* was expected to be on the internal
IM system at all times. This meant that you could see who was at their
keyboard, you got shifted to 'inactive' if you were AFK for more than
10 minutes. The calendar system would automatically set 'in a meeting'
when appropriate (many meetings were entirely online). Everyone was
also expected to be immediately available by phone during working
hours, if they were at their desk and not in a meeting.
None of this stopped you from playing Freecell of course, but with
Scrum project management, you were expected to be able to provide a
status report every day.
pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <hgpk56$l3e$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> As if no one died for the sake of the railroads, too.
>
>Indeed. Talk to the descendants of the the Chinese who built the
>railways in western Canada.
Or the railways in the western U.S., too. Except that since for
several years the U.S. only allowed males to immigrate from China,
most of them didn't have descendants.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Szymon Sokół
>:: Open sides and some handles. I estimate that for most people in
>:: reasonable shape (and why would we want grannies on public transport
>:: instead of behind the wheel of a car?) the bus would only have to
>:: slow down to about fifteen miles per hour. It would be mildly
>:: uncomfortable in winter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
>
>: "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net>
>: Better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll
>
> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel
>
> For postsingularity/nanotech version of such moving road surfaces, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Fall_of_Night
What we really need are transfer discs. And I have been of that opinion
since I read "Ringworld" for the first time.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
Kurt Busiek
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:25:57 -0800, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-21 20:19:29 -0800, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <hgpgt6$fqn$2...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Way too delicate. Skyhooks, sure. But platforms that come to a
>>>> standstill? Nah. Backpacks that have a pole projecting upward to a
>>>> sturdy wire loop above the head.
>>>
>>> I prefer the giant robot arm, but I find the backpack proposal to also
>>> be acceptable.
>>
>> Giant robot arm is fine, as long as it doesn't mess around with
>> sissy-ass relative-motionless stand-on platforms. Giant robot clutching
>> hand to grab those pedestrians the bus software has identified as likely
>> passengers as it careens through the city, and stuff them into the bus
>> through the roof access hatch. "Nom nom nom" sound effects are optional
>> but recommended.
>
> "No! No! I didn't want to get on the bus! I was waiting to cross the
> street!"
A minor price to pay for commuting efficiency.
A new version of the software is being worked on; it'll fix that
specific problem but add interesting other recognition glitches.
Szymon Sokół
> There are other solutions which involve, if necessary, MAKING the fuel.
> Which we would use. And if forced into it, we'd do it in a way that kept
> it affordable, if more expensive, because it would be vastly more
> expensive to try to change the country to NOT use it. The ideal is
> probably lots of nuke plants which would then manufacture gasoline,etc.
> as an energy carrier. Why gasoline? It has a great energy density and we
> already have a huge infrastructure designed to transport and distribute
> it down to the individual level.
What exactly are you going to produce gasoline from? Carbon dioxide and
water? I am not sure if it wouldn't be cheaper just to drop combustion
engines in favor of electricity.
John Francis
>>
>>In which case, along with a very gradual migration back to the cities,
>>we're going to see serious work on alternative fuel vehicles, plug-in
>>electrics, and a rising popularity of motorbikes for commuting. Not to
>>mention telecommuting: I've already worked places where a substantial
>>fraction of employees worked from home or a remote office on a regular
>>basis.
>
>That'll never work...how would the suits keep you from playing Freecell?...r
Well, they can't actually stop you from playing.
But spyware could let them know what you were doing.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:17:08 -0500, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> There are other solutions which involve, if necessary, MAKING the fuel.
>> Which we would use. And if forced into it, we'd do it in a way that kept
>> it affordable, if more expensive, because it would be vastly more
>> expensive to try to change the country to NOT use it. The ideal is
>> probably lots of nuke plants which would then manufacture gasoline,etc.
>> as an energy carrier. Why gasoline? It has a great energy density and we
>> already have a huge infrastructure designed to transport and distribute
>> it down to the individual level.
>
> What exactly are you going to produce gasoline from? Carbon dioxide and
> water? I am not sure if it wouldn't be cheaper just to drop combustion
> engines in favor of electricity.
>
The problem with electricity is the storage thereof, and the "pumping"
stations, etc. The standard house isn't set up to be able to channel
nearly that much power through it, so you're either REWIRING most of the
residential district, or you have to make "Zap Stations" instead of gas
stations, which will have the problem that they'll need to be drawing
some insane amount of wattage.
And the batteries we have currently have severe storage limitations,
and even more limitations on how fast they can be charged. For instance,
the amount of power in my laptop battery is not very large -- 55W-h, I
think. A 2,000 W hairdryer uses about half a watt-hour in a second, so
if the battery would just accept the charge fast enough I should be able
to plug it in and recharge from zero in no more than a hundred seconds
or so. But As You Know Bob, it takes a LOT longer to recharge a dead
battery, because it won't ACCEPT the charge that fast, and Bad Things
happen if you were to try to force it to. The Charge In The Garage
electric cars can sort-of get around this by charging for many hours,
but they carry a LOT of batteries for a not very large cruising range.
The best solution I've seen is an efficient, fairly steady-speed
generator which recharges batteries; you can draw direct from the
generator during cruising, the batteries provide surge power (which is
bad for turbine/generator type equipment). But the generator runs on...
wait for it... gasoline.
Hydrocarbons are just excellent energy carriers.
Richard D. Latham
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:17:08 -0500, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> There are other solutions which involve, if necessary, MAKING the fuel.
>> Which we would use. And if forced into it, we'd do it in a way that kept
>> it affordable, if more expensive, because it would be vastly more
>> expensive to try to change the country to NOT use it. The ideal is
>> probably lots of nuke plants which would then manufacture gasoline,etc.
>> as an energy carrier. Why gasoline? It has a great energy density and we
>> already have a huge infrastructure designed to transport and distribute
>> it down to the individual level.
>
> What exactly are you going to produce gasoline from? Carbon dioxide and
> water? I am not sure if it wouldn't be cheaper just to drop combustion
> engines in favor of electricity.
>
I'm willing to be convinced, but I see no plausible way to have a
technological society without having high density power.
Its hard to build an airplane that runs on batteries.
If you were to sit down and invent the perfect designer fuel, you'd
probably end up with gasoline, or something very much like it. High
density. Easy to handle and transport. Doesn't require special
materials to containerize. Not particularily toxic, as these things
go. Liquid over a pretty wide range of temperatures. Stores for
moderate timeframes pretty well.
We had an extended thread within the last couple of years where we
hashed out the likely cost of producing gasoline in industrial
quantities using electricity, while sucking your carbon out of the
atmosphere, va current industrial processes.
I think we ended up ( modulo electricity costs ) of something on the
very close order of $20 a gallon.
--
#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