LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending

kkt schrieb:


Usually, but not always. For instance, if enemy action has taken out
the preferred route, it's a lot quicker to bulldoze a dirt road than
to lay even a temporary railway.

Your assumption isn't supported by the history of WWII. The normal
procedure has been, that shortly after a major bomb attack, the
railroad was rolling again, while parallel roads were still blocked by
refugees and chaos. (Exception: destroying major viaducts, but
this was unlikely without well-aimed blockbusters for that single
target). Peacetime quality and safety considerations didn't apply.

The German motorways of the 30s didn't have much of a useful purpose
before ~1950. They were supposed to: Hitler had promised motorization
for the masses, but just like his other promises ...



The convoy with Eisenhower did
actually happen.

Oh yes.
In those days, the US Navy tested launching Sparrowhawks from the USS
Macon. This has happened, too,
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/g441983.jpg
and made as much sense.



However, it's also true that the massive federal subsidy for the
interstates was motivated by truckers, commuters, and recreational
drivers, and "defense" was a secondary consideration at most.

"At most" puts it nicely.

But it
was during the cold war and helped sell the project to Congress.

Do you really think, that this argument was necessary? In Germany, which
was in a - ahem - slightly less fortunate economic situation, motorway
building restarted on a large scale in 1953, without any such argument.


Hans-Joachim


--
The United States has the best recovery money can buy.

Kenneth Rogoff

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

Jack May wrote:

You forgot to mention that everyone who takes a train is a
pea-brained laggard with a welfare check. Upstanding white folk such
as yourself should never stoop to such lows!

The British government did the latest work on trying to understand
technology laggards

http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/...%20laggards%22


Its not trains, it is all technologies. The British were trying to
understand technology laggards in their process to move towards
digital TV. Every technology transition I have ever followed had
technology laggards holding on the past and exclaiming loudly the
inferiority the new technology.

It has been Laser Disks vs DVD, records vs CD vs MP3, and so on.

I think it is genetic since it is so wide spread and so certain. The
16% of people being technology laggards and their characteristics in
society are from the study. The study was trying to find out if there
were any reasons for the attitudes of the laggards.

So you are not special in supporting trains, you are just one of many
laggards in many fields. with laggards probably tending to reject any
change they encounter.

The other 16% are at the start of the technology and early adoption.
That is my category which makes my view is at the extreme opposite of
laggards which is why there is conflict.

The remaining 68% is the many users that decide they like the new
technology better than the old technology and switch to that new
technology.

And of course, to Randian/Panglossian technophiles like Jack, the new
technology is *always*--a priori--better than the old technology, right,
Jack?

So tell, me, Jack, how is it then that, just to take one small example,
digital photography is still *nowhere near* the optical resolution
possible with film in larger formats (say, 6x6cm upwards)? How could
that be, if the new technology is *always* better than the old
technology? (Not only that, but digital isn't expected to come anywhere
near that resolution in the forseeable future. Moore's law and all that
doesn't apply in all cases.)


Not only that, but cheap digital cameras are about as useful as a box
brownie. When you've got a few pictures of your friends, then what?
Digital SLRs, which do approximate to 35mm SLRs, are still much more
expensive. The main effect of digital photography has been a
catastrophic fall in standards. You could always take pictures with
heads and feet cut off, with the camera crooked, out of focus, or with
too much or too little depth of field. The difference is they didn't
use to get printed in colour supplements.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

SMS wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

Jack May wrote:

You forgot to mention that everyone who takes a train is a
pea-brained laggard with a welfare check. Upstanding white folk such
as yourself should never stoop to such lows!

The British government did the latest work on trying to understand
technology laggards

http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/...%20laggards%22


Its not trains, it is all technologies. The British were trying to
understand technology laggards in their process to move towards
digital TV.

There was some study in the U.S. regarding the slow transition to
digital TV. The two main reasons we

1. Too expensive
2. Current system is adequate

The complaints were more about the content, than the picture quality.

In any case, once the prices come down to comparable prices of SDTV, the
adoption will be widespread.

In the UK the digital cable channels repeat interminably. It is
frustrating to read about new episodes of Law and Order in the
appropriate newsgroup and later switch on a Briscoe and Logan episode
where the colour has almost faded to monochrome.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
kkt schrieb:


Usually, but not always. For instance, if enemy action has taken out
the preferred route, it's a lot quicker to bulldoze a dirt road than
to lay even a temporary railway.

Your assumption isn't supported by the history of WWII. The normal
procedure has been, that shortly after a major bomb attack, the
railroad was rolling again, while parallel roads were still blocked by
refugees and chaos. (Exception: destroying major viaducts, but
this was unlikely without well-aimed blockbusters for that single
target). Peacetime quality and safety considerations didn't apply.

The German motorways of the 30s didn't have much of a useful purpose
before ~1950. They were supposed to: Hitler had promised motorization
for the masses, but just like his other promises ...

I wonder if the revenue from the savings stamps is still accruing
interest somewhere?

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

Jack May wrote:

You forgot to mention that everyone who takes a train is a
pea-brained laggard with a welfare check. Upstanding white folk such
as yourself should never stoop to such lows!

The British government did the latest work on trying to understand
technology laggards

http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/...%20laggards%22


Its not trains, it is all technologies. The British were trying to
understand technology laggards in their process to move towards
digital TV. Every technology transition I have ever followed had
technology laggards holding on the past and exclaiming loudly the
inferiority the new technology.

It has been Laser Disks vs DVD, records vs CD vs MP3, and so on.

I think it is genetic since it is so wide spread and so certain. The
16% of people being technology laggards and their characteristics in
society are from the study. The study was trying to find out if there
were any reasons for the attitudes of the laggards.

Do their characteristics include poor diction and a penchant for
insulting strangers on usenet?

So you are not special in supporting trains, you are just one of many
laggards in many fields. with laggards probably tending to reject any
change they encounter.

The other 16% are at the start of the technology and early adoption.
That is my category which makes my view is at the extreme opposite of
laggards which is why there is conflict.

You seem to misunderstand. Nobody cares about your narcissism or when
you adopt new technologies. The problem is that your views about
transportation are poorly thought out.

The remaining 68% is the many users that decide they like the new
technology better than the old technology and switch to that new
technology.

And of course, to Randian/Panglossian technophiles like Jack, the new
technology is *always*--a priori--better than the old technology, right,
Jack?

Of course, when your argument rests on the premise that older technology
is inherently inferior to newer technology, it would help if you could
read a history book or something. If I recall, electric trainsets are a
newer technology than internal combustion engines.

Hans-Joachim Zierke writes:

kkt schrieb:


Usually, but not always. For instance, if enemy action has taken out
the preferred route, it's a lot quicker to bulldoze a dirt road than
to lay even a temporary railway.

Your assumption isn't supported by the history of WWII. The normal
procedure has been, that shortly after a major bomb attack, the
railroad was rolling again, while parallel roads were still blocked by
refugees and chaos. (Exception: destroying major viaducts, but
this was unlikely without well-aimed blockbusters for that single
target). Peacetime quality and safety considerations didn't apply.

The German motorways of the 30s didn't have much of a useful purpose
before ~1950. They were supposed to: Hitler had promised motorization
for the masses, but just like his other promises ...

Maybe it depends how good your railway network is. If you've got a
relatively sparse network of mostly single-track railroad, being able
to bulldoze a dirt road around a blockage would look pretty
attractive.

The convoy with Eisenhower did
actually happen.

Oh yes.
In those days, the US Navy tested launching Sparrowhawks from the USS
Macon. This has happened, too,
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/g441983.jpg
and made as much sense.



However, it's also true that the massive federal subsidy for the
interstates was motivated by truckers, commuters, and recreational
drivers, and "defense" was a secondary consideration at most.

"At most" puts it nicely.

But it
was during the cold war and helped sell the project to Congress.

Do you really think, that this argument was necessary? In Germany, which
was in a - ahem - slightly less fortunate economic situation, motorway
building restarted on a large scale in 1953, without any such argument.

There's traditional and constitutional separation of powers in the
U.S. While "post roads" is listed as a power of congress, before the
1920s transportation was mostly a matter for the states. National
defense is more completely in the federal sphere.

It was also a new tax for a domestic program, which Republicans have
generally opposed. Calling it a defense program helped it go down
easier. Especially the 90% Federal funding; previous funding for
roads had been half to 60%.

-- Patrick

On 25 Jan, 17:13, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:
Beavis and Butt-Head wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...s25jan25,0,791...

Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save
10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours
longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas
and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save
$7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return.


FINTAN UK (INCOMPETENT FRAUDSTERS) UNLOCK THE SECRET CODE TO
DESTROYING YOUR BUSINESS, AS PIONEERED BY LEE **** INGRAM =
INCOMPETENT MORON. LET'S READ MORE ABOUT THE SECRET CODE TO BUSINESS
FAILURE, LEE YOU ****.

http://www.fintanuk.com/downloads/th...de_pro_sec.pdf

DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THESE INCOMPETENT FINTAN UK FRAUDSTERS.

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Jack May spake thus:

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

Jack May wrote:

You forgot to mention that everyone who takes a train is a pea-brained
laggard with a welfare check. Upstanding white folk such as yourself
should never stoop to such lows!

The British government did the latest work on trying to understand
technology laggards

http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/...%20laggards%22

Its not trains, it is all technologies. The British were trying to
understand technology laggards in their process to move towards digital
TV. Every technology transition I have ever followed had technology
laggards holding on the past and exclaiming loudly the inferiority the
new technology.

It has been Laser Disks vs DVD, records vs CD vs MP3, and so on.

I think it is genetic since it is so wide spread and so certain. The
16% of people being technology laggards and their characteristics in
society are from the study. The study was trying to find out if there
were any reasons for the attitudes of the laggards.

So you are not special in supporting trains, you are just one of many
laggards in many fields. with laggards probably tending to reject any
change they encounter.

The other 16% are at the start of the technology and early adoption.
That is my category which makes my view is at the extreme opposite of
laggards which is why there is conflict.

The remaining 68% is the many users that decide they like the new
technology better than the old technology and switch to that new
technology.

And of course, to Randian/Panglossian technophiles like Jack, the new
technology is *always*--a priori--better than the old technology, right,
Jack?

So tell, me, Jack, how is it then that, just to take one small example,
digital photography is still *nowhere near* the optical resolution
possible with film in larger formats (say, 6x6cm upwards)? How could that
be, if the new technology is *always* better than the old technology?
(Not only that, but digital isn't expected to come anywhere near that
resolution in the forseeable future. Moore's law and all that doesn't
apply in all cases.)


Not only that, but cheap digital cameras are about as useful as a box
brownie. When you've got a few pictures of your friends, then what?
Digital SLRs, which do approximate to 35mm SLRs, are still much more
expensive. The main effect of digital photography has been a catastrophic
fall in standards. You could always take pictures with heads and feet cut
off, with the camera crooked, out of focus, or with too much or too little
depth of field. The difference is they didn't use to get printed in
colour supplements.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Now the cheap digital camera takes a better picture than a Brownie and you
can reshoot the picture if you cut off a part of the subject. They do not
print the bad pictures as in the old days. One of the reasons Kodak has
had a fall off in revenue. Lots less photo paper sold.

In article , Hans-Joachim
Zierke wrote:

kkt schrieb:


Usually, but not always. For instance, if enemy action has taken out
the preferred route, it's a lot quicker to bulldoze a dirt road than
to lay even a temporary railway.

Your assumption isn't supported by the history of WWII. The normal
procedure has been, that shortly after a major bomb attack, the
railroad was rolling again, while parallel roads were still blocked by
refugees and chaos. (Exception: destroying major viaducts, but
this was unlikely without well-aimed blockbusters for that single
target). Peacetime quality and safety considerations didn't apply.


It also isn't supported by current railroad operation.

When a derailment plows up a section of railroad line, a self-propelled
crane and several flat cars worth of prefabricated track can have the line
open again for traffic in a matter of several hours, with the longest time
required for the crane and track to arrive at the site.

During the USA Civil War, railroad lines were torn out and rebuilt in a
matter of hours sometimes.

Of course, at that time locomotives and cars were a lot lighter, so
temporary bridges could be built out of fairly small timbers. On the
other hand, there also weren't any self-propelled cranes with flat cars of
prefabricated track available either.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

In article TG%vh.14196$Y6.6446@edtnps89, "sharx35"
wrote:

QUICK!! Go join the 21st century and buy a bunch of crap you don't need!!!

Oh, and for other recreational activities? I'll bet walking and jogging
are way too old fashioned for Jack. I'll bet he prefers having nice games
of Escalator-Squash. Or maybe centrifugal bumble-puppy? Or maybe
Riemann-surface tennis? After all, it can't be good for you unless it
consumes at least 20 horsepower of energy.

Great post!


I think you were probably the only one who understood the Huxley
references to a conspicuous consumption society.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.