Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 939 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Larfinboy (0 DX)
23 Jul 12 UTC
EOG live gunboat 232
gameID=95537&nocache=844
44 replies
Open
Yonni (136 D(S))
19 Jul 12 UTC
F01 - A Portugal
I've heard some people say that moving Marseilles-Spain in S01 is a complete waste but is there not an advantage in needing to be in Spain in 02 instead of Portugal? Thoughts?
12 replies
Open
Larfinboy (0 DX)
23 Jul 12 UTC
Live games without dropouts
I'm blowing a gasket here!
9 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
A Portrait of Our Heroes as Young Men (Or Women)
Maybe it's because I'm young and trying to write and have grandiose hopes and dreams--shoot for the stars and I'll just land behind a desk, still it's better than having never looked skyward at all, I suppose--but I often like to think what people must have been like in those younger years "just before" they sparked greatness...what do you think? Any famous people you ever think of as, say, 20, just before greatness? (Bonus points for YOURSELF at 20!) ;)
18 replies
Open
Jamiet99uk (1307 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Tax dodgers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

Disgusting. This is a worldwide scandal. These people are scum.
60 replies
Open
Crazy Anglican (1100 D)
11 Jul 12 UTC
Username Smash game
Take your username and smash it together with someone else's. Kind of like verbal play-dough.
105 replies
Open
terry32smith (0 DX)
16 Jul 12 UTC
CSteinhardt is the site police.
He spends his life policing this web site. He reports daily to the mods on everyone's moves within games and post n pre-game comments in the blogs. He is like one of those Nazi or communst informants who report potential "enemies of the state".

P.S. - Look at his posts. Always involved in some type of controversy or witch hunt. Get a life CSteinhardt, there's more to it than being a web site security guard.
47 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
Illegal American occupation of Hawai'i
Will Hawai'i ever have its sovereignty returned? If not, how can the United States claim the moral high ground?
39 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
23 Jul 12 UTC
Internet break
Internet discourse is turning me into an asshole. I will be taking a break from the Internet. I will finish my games and the debate, but I won't be back for a while. I still love you all and I'm not quitting, so don't trip. This is not directed in enmity at anyone, this is for my own good. Peace.
7 replies
Open
MichiganMan (5121 D)
23 Jul 12 UTC
EoG Bull Shit #1-2
Once again a CD plays a significant role in the outcome of the game.
17 replies
Open
Sargmacher (0 DX)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Controversial Thread Topic Of Which I Have No Desire to Take Seriously!
Timbuktu holy sites are being destroyed by Islamist extremists!
Isn't this terrible?
4 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2736 D(B))
20 Jul 12 UTC
We landed on the moon!
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_krrfsbi9261qzr4e1o1_400.png

Anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing today. I still think it's probably the coolest and most scientifically and culturally significant accomplishment in American history.
37 replies
Open
podium (498 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
What's going on
In last 5 minutes had relog on 4 times.Everytime I scroll from one thread to another or back home.Comes up as guest and have to relog in.
What gives?And yes I checked remember me.
0 replies
Open
Sandgoose (0 DX)
17 Jul 12 UTC
TOURNAMENT OF SANDS
Sandgoose is hosting a tournament! Of course, HE WILL WIN! (just kidding)

Details inside...
18 replies
Open
LordTywin (196 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Help! Can someone please tell me how do you give the boot to a player?
This guy signed up for our game and never showed up for the first turn. He got England, so you can imagine how Russia is doing. We'd like to get someone to join the game to take over. We are in Autumn 1901.
6 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Ban cars!˘in urban areas)
Seriously, but especially in the US...
orathaic (1009 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Ok, so why, well first, there are some major health concerns, first cars tend to injury, maim and kill cyclists. It is true that some cyclists 'appear out of nowhere' and surprise motorists, but the resulting injuries are predominantly to the cyclists. Without cars in our urban areas cycling injuries would be reduced to the odd broken bone, lacerations and bruising - the kind of thing which (some) professional sports stars risk as part of their jobs.

Second, there is a health care question, how does a state manage an obesity epidemic? Well it is rather difficult for some people to lose weight regardless of their diets, but the vast majority of people, regardless of their weight, would be better off if they got more exercise. The health of your heart depends on how much you use it. In fact NOT getting at least 30 minutes exercise everyday is a bigger risk factor than smoking...

Thirdly, urban areas are more efficient the more compact/higher density they become. You can clearly fit more space for parking bikes than you can for cars, especially if those same cars are carrying only one person per journey...

Fourthly, public transport (buses/trams/trains) will benefit greatly, if you need to travel further than your local area a quick cycle to the bus/train station will gain greatly in terms of the services offered once demand increases. The gains here are both for private enterprise (running the transport) and for the environment. The reduction in emitted greenhouse gases, and energy used per person will save everyone money and reduce our impact on the planet.

Fifthly, outside of urban areas there will be a reduction in traffic (as inter-city trains and buses become more popular) and rural road users will gain a corresponding increase in the pleasure of using the roads.

Lastly, there will be significantly fewer inner city drive by shootings.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
21 Jul 12 UTC
1.) What do professional sports stars have to do with cars?
2.) What does not getting 30 minutes of exercise a day have to do with cars?
3.) What does urban density have to do with cars?
4.) This point is actually halfway valid. Only problem is a city like Indianapolis (my hometown) that simply won't put any money into public transportation. I guess they don't have any money anyway; Carmel pays for just about everything. Can't ban cars and public transportation, can we?
5.) Why should there be any regard for pleasure of using the roads?
6.) What does shooting a gun have to do with cars?
orathaic (1009 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
'Only problem is a city like Indianapolis (my hometown) that simply won't put any money into public transportation'

if you ignore publicly funded 'public transport' then you can have private enterprise provide buses and trams to transport people around a city.

If you force demand for these services up - by banning cars - then you give massive incentive to pirvate companies to make this kind of investment.

I don't know why you'd want public transport to be arranged via public funding..
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
21 Jul 12 UTC
So tell me.. why would any private enterprise have any interest in a city that's rejected the same transport they'd be offering? That makes total business sense. So let's ban cars in order to help the busing business. Gotcha. Good point. I'll go ahead and sell my 20,000 mile car for $40,000 less than I bought it for two months ago just to help the bus business. Doesn't work like that.
Jowe (956 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
How about a gas tax? That accomplishes essentially the same thing, except that it funnels money into the government, from the wealthy who can still afford to pay the increased tax.
Draugnar (0 DX)
21 Jul 12 UTC
@orathaic - Without people driving cars, who the fuck will pay for the roads? You do realize they are paid in large part by the licensing of cars. Well, maybe you didn't being you aren't an American.

@Jowe - we already have a massive gas tax. The federal tax on a gallon of gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. That's over 5%. Then there are state and local taxes which average to 31.1 cents per gallon. This means we are paying alomst 50 cents per gallon in taxes already. Computed out, that means last year I paid around $500 in gas taxes. No thanks. Don't want even more going to the abused and misused coffers of our corrupt government under Obama.
Jamiet99uk (1307 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
Draugnar, a 5% fuel tax (or just over 5%) is not "massive".

Here in the UK the tax on petrol (gasoline) is 64%. For diesel it's 62%.
Draugnar (0 DX)
21 Jul 12 UTC
@Jamie - that's just the fed portion. Read again and you'll see it is more like 15%. And yes, I know the Eurozone has outrageous fuel prices, but you also have cars that get *much* better mileage (kilometerage?) that the US won't let in here. They say it is safety concerns, but it's really big oil wanting to keep us under it's thumb.
Draugnar (0 DX)
21 Jul 12 UTC
Oh and Jamie, you all cross countries like we cross states *and* have a good rail system to boot. Our rail systems suck because they aren't as unified as the rail in Europe. Now, I can't speak for the UK as I've only had a layover in Heathrow, but Switzerland, Austria, and Germany were easy to get around in. I could hop a train most anywhere. And as a tourist/business traveller from the US, I just bought the month long 7 country (I think) rail pass.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Yeah, there is a huge difference in fuel tax in europe, i know in Ireland they have a levy and then VAT (sales tax) on top, so you pay an extra ~21% of the cost after the levy...

It does encourage having a market for cars with smaller engines (there is also higher motor tax for having a larger engine) - the US has 'large' engines as the smallest you can buy, afaik.

As to 'who will pay for the road upkeep?'. First bikes do a lot less damage to the roads, so maintance costs will be lower, and second you will still have delivery vechiles supplying businesses in the city, and they will contribute their share of road tax...

Though at the moment, in ireland at least, the road tax isn't ring-fenced, so it doesn't go to pay for maintance of roads, it goes to central government.

In the longterm this is a minor cost compared to the medical costs, both lung damage of citizens and injuries caused by traffic accidents, along with the preventative benefits of reduced cases of heart disease.
semck83 (229 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
I'm amused and a little flattered by how interested you are in our country, orathaic, and in spending your time making radical and impractical proposals that nobody here (thank God) would ever go for.
achillies27 (100 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
I Wholeheartedly agree with orathaic.
achillies27 (100 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
Then again, I live in Canada...
Thucydides (864 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Only if we imporove our public transport.

Or if there are automated cars that are hooked up to a traffic network, you won't be allowed to drive into places where there is too much congestion and would need to use another form of transport - this is the option I favor for the future, since it's not like we can really phase out all the infrastructure we built for cars any time soon.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
@smeck, you act like i'm in no way connected to anyone living in your country, as if i have no relatives or friends there. As if i'm not part of an international community, maybe you are not accustomed to humans who actually for the wellbeing of anyone outside of their own country.

I don't know, i can't fairly judge you. But feel free to enligthen me.

In the context of this forum, i've had the pro/anti- gun control arguement many times. I hope i've made myself clear in the past. But someone else decided to make the connection to cars. It is possible that i am continuing to be an active proponents of my (rather European) political ideas in this community as ever, rather than jumping onto a specific plan for your country...
Fortress Door (1837 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
krellin was the only one who connected the gun control things to cars, and he wasn't serious

and countiue, orathaic, i truly find it interesting to hear your ideas, even though i usually disagree with them
semck83 (229 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Sure, orathaic. Just giving you a hard time. Sorry. Of course I have friends and family in your country, too, so I understand caring about how a country is run. I just spend much more thinking about my own, but I suppose you're on a forum of Americans here.

Now, your remarks do make me wonder if you've ever been to an American city outside Boston, New York, or DC, though maybe that's unfair. But for an actual substantive response, here we go:

1) Most Americans don't really care for this level of social engineering. Taking away their cars and a lot of their independence to make them get more exercise would be anathema to the spirit of how the country works, and would go down like a lead balloon. I fully support this ethos.

2) Your points just assume that bikes are desireable. If bicyclists are having so many accidents, why not ban bikes? (Note: I don't support this either. Just saying that it is an unexamined hypothesis in your points, despite the vastly inferior efficiency of bikes).

3) You claim urban areas are more "efficient" the more compact / dense they become. In what way, exactly? As long as there's a good car network, they're about the same either way. I can go 8 miles in Dallas as quickly and easily as I can go 3 miles in Manhattan. Moreover, this size brings great benefits: people get to have nicely sized house with a lawn, which their kids can play outside in. That's right -- their kids can get exercise more easily. I suspect many people would not agree that it would be more "efficient" to cram them into small apartments without yards and make them take just as long to get to work walking, biking, or using public transportation as it took them before driving. (Of course, many would disagree -- this is part of what's so wonderful about having many different cities of many different styles. Driving in Dallas is a joy; walking in Boston is a joy. Except when it's cold, like for 5-6 months of the year).

4) This is another "American ethos" or liberty-based point. Our public transportation is already massively subsidized and still struggles. People just don't like it very much, outside the obvious places. We're not a people that typically likes to force people to completely change their lifestyle to something they wouldn't choose and don't like because we know better what is good for them. Again, I applaud.

Public transportation in our large, car-evolved cities is just much, much slower than taking a car. This wouldn't be an easy thing to change. The physical density of these cities is so low -- thanks to large yards, etc., -- that it would not be efficient to have transportation go near every house or neighborhood. Unavoidably, the process is going to take much longer if forced on a place that was never designed for it.

5) As far as business, it would almost certainly be hurt. It's much easier to go to the store and stick something in your trunk than to carry it home in your bike (if it's large) or try to take it on public transportation. In fact, even in the "pedestrian cities" of New York and Boston, the norm is to know somebody who has a car or pickup for such times and get them to go help you buy a TV (or whatever). This is to say nothing of the exceptional convenience with which you can run out to the store for something, when you might not if it was going to be a 20-30 minute drive.

In your vision, I guess we'd just have to pay to have stuff delivered, after taking more trouble to go to the store in the first place. You really think this would help commerce?

I could go on, but I've got things to do.
Thucydides (864 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
As a red-blooded American I fully support the trend in our cities of becoming more compact, livable, and pedestrian.

It is one of the things that makes me optimistic about my country's future. Suburban living is being rejected by the younger generation, and I think for the best.

We always knew, I think, that those far-flung suburbs would eventually become ghost towns. Maybe the ones closer in will gradually become dense cities in their own right, but as a guy raised in Houston, the worldwide capital of urban sprawl, I have seen the utter insanity that is the infinite build-out of flat countryside - so far that it is further from Houston's eastern fringe to its western one than it is from the same point eastward to the Louisiana border
ckroberts (3548 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
I'd favor a move in this direction, but I'd prefer to see it develop organically. For example, cities should get rid of zoning regulations that requires a certain number of parking spots for businesses and that discourage denser development by requiring a certain number of feet from the property line to the building, forbid mixed use dwellings, limit the number of stories, etc etc. We should also stop subsidizing, directly and indirectly, auto culture and the oil industries.
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
You can all go to hell. I buy big cars with the biggest damned engines I can find just to piss people like you off.

You can pry my V8 gasoline-powered car from my cold dead body.

Why would I walk anywhere? I run three miles every other day just so I DON'T have to walk to stay healthy.

We have a little thing called freedom in America. If I can afford the insurance, gas, and maintenance of my car, I should be able to do whatever I want.
ckroberts (3548 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
"I buy big cars with the biggest damned engines I can find just to piss people like you off."

That doesn't sound like a terribly healthy way to go through life. But you know what else really terrifies me: when people send me unmarked, nonconsecutive twenty dollar bills.

"I run three miles every other day just so I DON'T have to walk to stay healthy."

Man, that sums up several of America's malfunctions pretty well. Please tell me you do that running at a gym you drive to.
flc64 (1963 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Trucks, guns, lawns, suburbia, friday night lights, apple pie, cotton candy, 32oz softdrinks, dogs, cats, riding my bike on country roads...I love the USA.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
@smeck, thanks for the honest response.

It highlights some of the differences between our cultures. Though we may both value freedom, what it means to us is two very different things.

I don't try to make any claim that either is superior, it is just nice to see the differences highlighted so plainly. Without politic or personal attack.

As for your questions, i've only been in Toronto (i know Canada), Washington and Dallas, (actually more like Fortworth) and even then i didn't drive around, as i was much younger and didn't do any of the navigating.

'Your points just assume that bikes are desireable' - i hope the health and environmental benefits, are there to support this assumption. However as I personally enjoy cycling i'm happy to admit this as a personal bias.

'You claim urban areas are more "efficient" ' - yes. I'm basing this on some research ~ as a physicist i can't help but really appreciate this analysis: http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html

I believe Geoffrey West explains it better than i can.

'In your vision, I guess we'd just have to pay to have stuff delivered, after taking more trouble to go to the store in the first place. You really think this would help commerce?'

Maybe, if it was more efficient than every individual using and operating their own motor vehicle (you're still paying for delivery, whether you pay for your own gas or have someone else do the driving - but if one car is needed to deliver multiple items this may cost less... may not, but you can see the logic i hope) This does leave you with the freedom to buy whatever you like, and the power to have it easily delivered to your home... That 's not entirely contradicting any ethos/ideology of the US. In the long-term if it's more efficient (and i've no proof that it would be, just a hunch) then it would save the economy, generally boosting growth and benefiting everyone.

How and ever, while this may be true, i accept the fact that it is contrary to a lot of the feelings people have about being 'American' - (and you can rationalise those feelings all you like, i honestly don't see how it contradicts the base ideals...) - now feelings and ideas are two different things, and both are important.

Culturally being a powerful individual is important to Americans. I get this feeling of power an independence from my bike, I understand. I'm sure there is a difference in power and independence felt by being able to drive a car... I would not want to give up my bicycle. (spent a lot of money on it recently and it feels soo good to have a very nice bike in decent working order, really don't know how i'd manage to get around without it... ) So i can definitely appreciate how it would feel to be asked to give up your independence (whether that was in terms of gun ownership or automobile usage - ie limiting where you can drive, as opposed to banning outright ownership)

I don't think any amount of rationalising will change how most people* FEEL about guns or cars. So while i've made my opinion and logic clear, (and i hope it is consistent) I don't expect everyone to roll over in the morning and FEEL disgusted by the car they drive to work... Or see things any differently.

That said, i don't think being exposed to alternative points of view is going to harm anyone.

*Where 'most people' excludes those few who are already verging on feelings similar to mine. I'm sure a minority actually don't feel too attached to their cars and are sympathetic to some of the points i've made. They may get up in the morning and decide to try cycling somewhere, whether it is to work of just to the local shopping centre....

@Gunfigther: 'You can all go to hell. I buy big cars with the biggest damned engines I can find just to piss people like you off.' - not sure if this is directed at me, but i'll address it. Some people tell me (when they find out i'm a vegetarian) that they'll eat 3 animals for every 1 i don't eat... I think they manage to be rather amusing. Meanwhile you come off as a bit of an ass.

No offence but I don't really care what you drive. Enjoy the power you get from a big machine, i'm sure it will serve your ego very well.
Fortress Door (1837 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
i don't have want to respond to all of this, since i am uninformed on the subject. But it is much easier to drive in, buy your stuff, and go home then ordering it. If you go in and buy it, you have it then. If you order, you have to wait (sometimes it never comes)
Thucydides (864 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
"You can all go to hell. I buy big cars with the biggest damned engines I can find just to piss people like you off.

You can pry my V8 gasoline-powered car from my cold dead body."

You are the walking embodiment of the tragedy of the commons mixed with equal parts rebellious child who is rebellious for its own sake. You have no rationality, and cannot be taken seriously as a result.
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Bulldoze suburbia.
Draugnar (0 DX)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Define suburbia... Is that any place with houses and yards that isn't farmland/rural?
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Developments adjacent to the city limits.
Draugnar (0 DX)
22 Jul 12 UTC
So I live inside a small city called Fairfield. It's on the edge of a bigger city called Cincinnati. Am I in suburbia? What about those townships that have villages and such so aren't in city limits yet are nearly surrounded and only their village charters keep them from becoming part of the city that surrounds them? Look at Cincinnati and it looks like some kind of bizarre spider or octopus monster with tendrils wrapping around little villages that it couldn't legally absorb as it grew.

And then there are the counties like Butler county (where I live) where the largest city pales in comparison to Cincinnati but where the farmland was predominately for the last 150+ years and where the population, despite being smaller, is actually a larger tax base (where the professionals live - lawyers, doctors, accoutants, IT professionals, CFOs/controllers, CIOs/IT Directors, COOs, CEOs/Presidents)? I know this is what you call suburbia for certain. Farms sold to developers and converted to homes with quarter to half million dollar (or even more) homes. I know you'd liek them gone, but these people pay the taxes that make the programs to support the poor possible. Cinci only has a few CEOs in the multi-millionaire range. Yes, we have P&G and 5/3rd Bank and Western Southern and Cincinnati Financial, but we laso have a lot of SMBs like Cincom and PEP who are privately owned companies and good corporate citizens. Companies whose owners don't dodge taxes personally or within their business and who give back to the community. Do you really want to force them to give up their homes that they pay serious property taxes on and move to blighted areas like Over-the-Rhine or Avondale. Look both up or just watch Harry's Law to see hollywood's representation of Over-the-Rhine where Harry's office is located.
semck83 (229 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
Orathaic,

One of the things I really don't appreciate is having somebody quote me, but cut off the last half of the sentence and completely change the meaning to something else that is more easily refutable.

Let's see what I actually said, and what you quoted me as saying. I said:

"You claim urban areas are more "efficient" the more compact / dense they become. In what way, exactly?"

You said:

----------------
'You claim urban areas are more "efficient" ' - yes. I'm basing this on some research ~ as a physicist i can't help but really appreciate this analysis: http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html
---------

Notice how you cut off the end of my sentence, where I said "the more compact they become"? Notice how that completely changes the meaning of what I said? Interestingly, your linked video said absolutely nothing about density or geographic size. It only talked about population, and it was descriptive, so presumably he's already counting very physically large cities like Houston and LA, and they're included in the positive results he discusses.

So in other words, it has no relevancy at all to my question / point about efficiency. As I said earlier, many people prefer to have a larger house and a yard, and would disagree that the increased "efficiency," however measured, that you were talking about (and which still hasn't been justified) was an actual improvement.

As to the rest of your response -- thank you for the response. I'll address some of your points.

You make a lot of claims that you don't think that what you're proposing actually conflicts with American freedom. That seems incredible, but I'll take you at your word. It's very simple: your proposal limits people's options -- thus, obviously, restricting their freedom (since they now have the freedom to drive in cities, and then would not); and it does so because you think you know better than they do what is better or more desireable for them. This is why it clashes with the American conception of liberty. This, for me, is enough not even to consider the proposal further.

That said, let's continue.

Turning to the delivery issue -- what you're forgetting is that in one case, you also have to pay the wages of somebody to drive the truck. That's likely to be a much more substantial cost than the fuel and wear costs.

"'Your points just assume that bikes are desireable' - i hope the health and environmental benefits, are there to support this assumption. However as I personally enjoy cycling i'm happy to admit this as a personal bias."

I understand. I could just as well say that the speed, space, and carrying capacity of cars should make the opposite obvious. And I also admit I'm biased. This is part of why I'm glad people can just choose.

Especially in a large, hot city like those in the south or west -- but really, everywhere -- cars bring the same feeling of freedom that you refer to with your bike. If I get hungry at 3 AM, I can run out to a 24 hour diner and eat. I don't have to wait for public transportation, which at the end of the day would probably add 30-60 minutes to the process (and I'm in a pretty public transportation-friendly city right now). It's great.

That, of course, is a feeling, like yours toward your bike.

That said, I _don't_ think you've given a good logical argument for banning cars being a good idea. You've given some reasons, but you've by far failed to support the idea that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages, let alone outweigh them enough to justify the huge retreat in liberty. In fact you didn't address several of my initial points. Most of what we are left with is a hunch -- without evidence -- that it would be "more efficient" by some undefined metric.

Anyway, thank you for a post that was, apart from its one egregious misquote, quite reasonable.

@Thucydides,

I must say I'm surprised by the claim that our cities are getting smaller or less sprawlish. What were the fastest-growing major metro areas from 2000-2010? Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix. I can't speak for Austin, but the rest are virtually poster-boys for sprawl. I'm also not aware of any suburbs that are dying and turning to ghost towns.

Perhaps you were being ironic?

Anyway, I don't think Gunfighter's post is as unreasonable as you claim, though I'm quite happy in my small 4-cylinder getting good gas mileage, myself. It's cheaper so I can drive more.
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Liberty is just code for greed. Its meaning has become meaningless. Greed and entitlement to be greedy is all rightwingers mean. Conservatism is nothing but entitled misanthropy.
@Thucy: IMO, suburban living is being rejected by the "younger generation"... because they're younger. Suburbs are ideally suited to young families. People are trending toward marriage and kids later in life. The younger generation may feel differently in 10-20 years when trying to deal with fitting a family into a 1BR apartment, crappy public school systems in the cities, and other day-to-day hassles that are no big deal as a single twentysomething.

@Draugnar: I'd consider Fairfield, Reading, Blue Ash, that whole zone as suburbia.

Let's ban airplanes too. There will be fewer hijackings, the airport land can be turned into bike storage lots, and professional athletes will get more exercise traveling to away games.
semck83 (229 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
@Ora, I could perhaps address a little more why I DON'T think it would increase efficiency, in interesting metrics. I've already argued that I don't think it would make things faster. I would also add that I think it would make things less free in other ways -- it constrains behavior by putting people at the mercy of the public transportation schedules that exist, which are themselves very very inefficient by comparison (in a city that is designed for cars, that is. In New York, neither is very efficient, but public transit isn't notably worse). Instead of being something that neutrally facilitates the choices and behaviors of citizens and consumers, the transportation system starts driving it in much more substantial ways. Let's take a trivial example, shall we? I used to have a legal job in north Dallas. Over lunch break, I would often jump in my car, drive 13 miles to a used camera store that closed at 5 (so I couldn't make it after work), do some shopping, and get back by the end of my hour. In your hypothetical world, I simply could not possibly do this. It would take me 30-40 minutes just to get to the store. You might say, "Well, if the city were more compact, you wouldn't have to go 13 miles." But here's the key thing. Even in more compact cities, I've known few where the kind of thing I did would be feasible, by the time you wait for public transportation, etc. Add to that the low cost of living I and all those around me experienced, the expansive homes (not me, I was a summer intern, but most of the rest), nice yards, etc., etc., and the claim of efficiency just boggles my mind. I won't say more till you've defined it better.
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Only the rich fly anyway. The rest of us couldnt give a damn.
semck83 (229 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
Yeah, man, all my grad school classmates making $18k a year and saving all year for their plane tickets are definitely in the richest 1%.
Hm, most recent data I could easily find on the internet was an ABC News poll from October 2011: More than seven in 10 can be described as infrequent fliers, flying once or twice a year or less; and 14 percent have never flown. Another 14 percent fly at least once every few months.

This was a random survey of American adults. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90360&page=1#.UAuCpaP67sY

Have you ever flown, Putin? If so, does that mean you're rich?
Thucydides (864 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
I aint got no cash thats fo sho
Putin33 (111 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Thanks for making my point. These grad students save all year just to fly once. The people who regularly use this mode of transportation are the rich. The median income of airline travelers is way above that of the average person.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
@smeck, first apologies for the misquote, i must admit i thought density was an important factor in population/superlinear growth.

I'd have assumed the 15% increase also applied to population density, but i may be completely off.

You said: 'your proposal limits people's options -- thus, obviously, restricting their freedom (since they now have the freedom to drive in cities, and then would not);'

You don't currently have the freedom to drive places without roads. And the roads are there not as a private investment but for 'the public good' via taxation.

So i would argue that it was not a 'free' choice to have this driving culture.

Nevertheless it exists, and by government regulation (driving licences and imported oil) and infrastructure. I would argue that this freedom isn't a fundamental right, but rather a convienance which the government has provided and would be correct to remove IF (and only IF) it was deemed to be for 'the public good'

Now of course the government are supposed to be representatives of the people, but i would suggest that they are entitled to use their mandate to do unpopular things which, nevertheless, they believe are good.

Retreat from liberty? No, you can still buy land and build a private tolled road if you wish. Nothing stopping private investment or the freedom to use whatever services private companies offer to sell you.

As for your middle of the night food delivery question. We have a single website here which allows orders be placed with the vast majority of local restaurants, they will deliver to my door in less time than it would take to go out to them and back.

I do not think relying on public transport for this would be ideal. Though i could easily cycle...

As for the hunches i'm left with. Well yep, i hope you weren't expecting some world shaking professionally created document to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that car-free cities are better for everyone!
orathaic (1009 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
I also hope i've at least demonstrated that the idea (which Krellin suggested ironically) is not entirely without merit.

Though perhaps a mixed solution would be better. You might have a city where you can turnevery second road into a car-free zone (imagine the square grid of blocks with four blocks grouped together instead of one, and the cross of roads in the middle could be turned into a park with cycle paths)
Gunfighter06 (224 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
@ ckroberts

I don't run at the gym. Treadmills bore the hell out of me. I lift at the gym.
Draugnar (0 DX)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Here is something to think about... People who live in the suburbs or rural but work in the city. I used to live in an area that was considered rural but fast becoking suburbia and worked in downtown Cincinnati. Now I was lucky that I had a bus route and a park and ride and my company didn't operate 24/7 so after 5:30 IT (me) only worked if I wanted to and I did that at home so I tool the bus and used the cell as my internet connection for my laptop on the ride home.

But even at that I had the occasional weekend and late evening like when we moved the company to new HQ and had to move equipment between the two buildings for the group that moved on a given night. No busses ran on weekends so I had to drive downtown. And no busses ran after 5:30 so I had to drive during the days I was putting in 12+ hours. Not being allowed to drive would have made that impossible. Then there is the matter of safety. The NKY express routes on TANK are safe, but the Metro is asking to get yourself knifed. Any bus where the busdriver is behind bullet proof glass and isn't allowed to come out from his booth is a mugging waiting to happen to the white guy in the suit that he has to wear to work at the downtown bank.
semck83 (229 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
Draug, I've finally realized what Putin means by the suburbs: he means places like Berkeley, California.

Orathaic, thanks. I'll respond later.


43 replies
Zmaj (215 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
EoG: Laconic
Epic is my middle name.
64 replies
Open
Mujus (1495 D(B))
22 Jul 12 UTC
What is this VDiplomacy? Is it new here?
(non-serious replies only please)
9 replies
Open
xiao1108 (453 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
EOG WTA-GB-152
So many CDs :(
6 replies
Open
Klaas (229 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
Cheating
Have a look at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=94201
How can Argentina be so sure that sout Africa would not easily pick a country... No defensive move by Argentina what so ever...
This game is anonymous and has no messages!
3 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
20 Jul 12 UTC
Gun Control, or Something Else--Why DO We Have So Many Shooting Deaths in the USA?
In the wake of The Dark Knight Rises shooting--condolences to all those afflicted by this horrible tragedy--I think the question bears mentioning again. I know pro-2nd Amendment folks here will say it "could" have happened regardless of gun control laws, and that crazy people will always do crazy things, and so on and so forth--but we're EASILY the most violent 1st World nation here, guys, and we allow a lot more freedom when it comes to guns...I DON'T think that's a coincidence.
188 replies
Open
BrownPaperTiger (508 D)
22 Jul 12 UTC
A box full of "Loading order..."
Is all I get - one for each unit.Can't see or place orders
Works fine on the iphone. No fun on IE9 or FF
Anyone got any ideas? I figure this is connected to the UTC time issue.
Thanks
3 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
20 Jul 12 UTC
Gun Control?? Bah....Ban CARS!
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths
Clearly automobiles are equally as dangerous, to much more dangerous than firearms. Time to ban the automobile. Take that, hysterical gun-control reactionaries!!
72 replies
Open
Texastough (25 DX)
21 Jul 12 UTC
vDiplomacy
Hey everybody there is another diplomacy sight called vDiplomacy. It is a sister sight to this one and we need more players. It has many more and much more fun maps. Anybody interested?
21 replies
Open
piping_piper (363 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
EoG - the gun
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=95335
A question for the austrian. What was the plan in eliminating England? Were you attempted to go for a solo, or just narrowing down the number of people for a draw?
15 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
Ban trolls
They're a threat to our infrastructure with their bridge-dwelling nonsense and poison the rhetorical well with their selfish antics. Ban them all for the good of the community!
17 replies
Open
thatwasawkward (4625 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
Ban humans.
Ban them everywhere.
3 replies
Open
Zmaj (215 D(B))
21 Jul 12 UTC
EoG: Europimps
I'm the Europimp and thou shalt have no other Europimps before me.
13 replies
Open
Check_mate (100 D)
21 Jul 12 UTC
its a shame that whoever started all these Man.Utd player games...
...can't spell TESTIMONIAL hahaaa
0 replies
Open
ckroberts (3548 D)
19 Jul 12 UTC
Players needed
We need players for an anonymous players, pw-protected game. It's a sequel of sorts to a game that had good players but a couple of missed moves and a civil disorder that threw the balance off.

Respond here or, for extra anonymity, message me for info.
14 replies
Open
Page 939 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top