|
On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
Corporations can sell cars.
Corporations can't sell public transit.
US is capitalistic and oligarchic
US prefers cars
|
On July 27 2016 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 19:16 xM(Z wrote:Haters gonna hate!. On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you" is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?. you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention). What valid reason would you have to kill a life if you're already dead anyway? There will be -1 humans regardless, why be the cause for there to be -2 humans?
Well that's the fun thing, once you are dead you do not need any reasons anymore.
You are dead,your actions have no consequences for your personal situation.
It kinda is impossible to have a reason for anything. Lets turn the situation around by instead of actively killing someone,you have to take action to safe someone.
You are dead and someone else is going to die, you can however press a button to safe him.
What reason is there for pressing the button?
|
On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars
Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby?
|
On July 27 2016 23:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 19:16 xM(Z wrote:Haters gonna hate!. On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you" is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?. you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention). What valid reason would you have to kill a life if you're already dead anyway? There will be -1 humans regardless, why be the cause for there to be -2 humans? Well that's the fun thing, once you are dead you do not need any reasons anymore. You are dead,your actions have no consequences for your personal situation. It kinda is impossible to have a reason for anything. Lets turn the situation around by instead of actively killing someone,you have to take action to safe someone. You are dead and someone else is going to die, you can however press a button to safe him. What reason is there for pressing the button?
You press it for the same reason you don't kill it--because having more people live is better than having less people live. From moralistic point of view. From a practical point of view, a living person can do more to improve the world than a dead one, and a bad person always has the chance to become a good person--so its always worth saving/preserving the life.
But when you're actually dying there, its hard to care about pressing the button. Much like if someone just poisoned you, its hard not to want to hit back for vengeance. Which is why, to me, its purely a pathos vs logos argument. Actions you do because you feel something, and actions you do because you know it betters the world. Since I can't see a logos answer to having someone die, it seems to be that its purely a pathos decision. Do you have a logos reason for that decision?
|
On July 28 2016 00:09 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby?
Because oil makes more money than altruism?
|
On July 27 2016 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 19:16 xM(Z wrote:Haters gonna hate!. On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you" is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?. you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention). What valid reason would you have to kill a life if you're already dead anyway? There will be -1 humans regardless, why be the cause for there to be -2 humans?
at this point i shall refuse to believe that people who think like that actually exist.
you are a figment of <nothing> and i wish you many Trumps.
|
On July 28 2016 00:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 00:09 Cascade wrote:On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby? Because oil makes more money than altruism?
A car saves time (a lot of public transport connections are aweful) and it gives a huge degree of freedom which few other things give. It has nothing to dk with lobbying.
|
On July 28 2016 01:23 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 00:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 28 2016 00:09 Cascade wrote:On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby? Because oil makes more money than altruism? A car saves time (a lot of public transport connections are aweful) and it gives a huge degree of freedom which few other things give. It has nothing to dk with lobbying.
Its actually financial vs personal.
IF you are rich enough to either be a car owner OR to afford an apartment in the parts of the city where public transport is affordable and easy--then you are fine. If you are too poor for either, you end up forced to take public transport when travel is longest and wait times least reliable.
As an example: if you live a few minutes walk from downtown, have a store nearby you for food/goods and primarily use public transport to go to slightly further places you'd like to visit--then public transport is great. If you live far, most likely in a house, and can use the car to go to the city--then you're in the same boat.
If you don't live in the city, and you don't have a car, then its 30-60 minute long bus rides at stops with only 1-2 buses that even come by and only every 20-40 minutes, and you'll have to do it everyday.
Best solution is ban ownership of land and ownership of cars, and have everyone live in a city with required public transport, and make sure zoning laws forces even integration of industrial, commercial, and residential properties so that the city is evenly spread.
Suddenly its cheap for everyone to go anywhere.
|
The best solution is to wait for self driving vehicles. If you don't want to wait you can invest public funds in it. Your proposal is way too extreme and will have a lot of unintended consequences.
The rest of your post I agree with.
If you don't live in the city, and you don't have a car, then its 30-60 minute long bus rides at stops with only 1-2 buses that even come by and only every 20-40 minutes, and you'll have to do it everyday.
Exactly the position I am in ^^.
|
On July 28 2016 03:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 01:23 RvB wrote:On July 28 2016 00:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 28 2016 00:09 Cascade wrote:On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby? Because oil makes more money than altruism? A car saves time (a lot of public transport connections are aweful) and it gives a huge degree of freedom which few other things give. It has nothing to dk with lobbying. Its actually financial vs personal. IF you are rich enough to either be a car owner OR to afford an apartment in the parts of the city where public transport is affordable and easy--then you are fine. If you are too poor for either, you end up forced to take public transport when travel is longest and wait times least reliable. As an example: if you live a few minutes walk from downtown, have a store nearby you for food/goods and primarily use public transport to go to slightly further places you'd like to visit--then public transport is great. If you live far, most likely in a house, and can use the car to go to the city--then you're in the same boat. If you don't live in the city, and you don't have a car, then its 30-60 minute long bus rides at stops with only 1-2 buses that even come by and only every 20-40 minutes, and you'll have to do it everyday. Best solution is ban ownership of land and ownership of cars, and have everyone live in a city with required public transport, and make sure zoning laws forces even integration of industrial, commercial, and residential properties so that the city is evenly spread. Suddenly its cheap for everyone to go anywhere.
This has more to do with it than you might think.
The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an attempt to monopolize surface transportation, and to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 28 2016 03:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 01:23 RvB wrote:On July 28 2016 00:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 28 2016 00:09 Cascade wrote:On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Privatised public transport? Why isn't the train and tram lobby as powerful as the oil lobby? Because oil makes more money than altruism? A car saves time (a lot of public transport connections are aweful) and it gives a huge degree of freedom which few other things give. It has nothing to dk with lobbying. Best solution is ban ownership of land and ownership of cars, and have everyone live in a city with required public transport, and make sure zoning laws forces even integration of industrial, commercial, and residential properties so that the city is evenly spread. Suddenly its cheap for everyone to go anywhere.
yeaaaa, about that whole state controlled land thing....
|
On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars
Corporations can sell public transit, both through providing the service and through providing the means (yes, when you see buses on the road, someone had to build and sell them). Actually, I think a company which would build silent, safe, not too slow, and decently eco-friendly public transports (buses, most likely) would make good money, because you wouldn't have to spend money in advertising shit to everyone, you'd just have to get a contract with the mayor and then the $$$ would start rolling.
|
Help me understand degreaser please...
How does WD40 compare to say decreaser for dishes, or decreaser for countertops and appliances, or decreaser for my bicycle.
When do I use what... Is there some science to this madness?
|
On July 28 2016 06:29 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Corporations can sell public transit, both through providing the service and through providing the means (yes, when you see buses on the road, someone had to build and sell them). Actually, I think a company which would build silent, safe, not too slow, and decently eco-friendly public transports (buses, most likely) would make good money, because you wouldn't have to spend money in advertising shit to everyone, you'd just have to get a contract with the mayor and then the $$$ would start rolling.
There have always been private mass transit, its just that its not cheap.
Taxi
Lift
Uber
etc...
People pay high prices for travel if they don't have their own transport. Public Transit is cheap specifically because its not for profit.
|
short answer (in the US). public transportation is terrible. Uber hasn't caught on and has its own problems. nobody wants to pay for the infrastructure to put in good public transportation. in New York and San Francisco a lot of people don't have cars. but in 99 percent of places you need a car. and if you want to go somewhere an hour or two away even you basically need a car.
It's hard to imagine a way in which cars disappear forever. most cities are pretty wide and even good public transit can't do everything.
|
Public transport is 'cheap' because more often than not it gets massive subsidies. I pay as much for public transport to Amsterdam as I would for the gasoline it takes to drive there and that's while public transport gets subsidies. One of the two options gives me the freedom to go when I want and wherever I want in half the time. I know what I'll use when I have the money.
|
On July 27 2016 23:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 19:16 xM(Z wrote:Haters gonna hate!. On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you" is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?. you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention). What valid reason would you have to kill a life if you're already dead anyway? There will be -1 humans regardless, why be the cause for there to be -2 humans? Well that's the fun thing, once you are dead you do not need any reasons anymore. You are dead,your actions have no consequences for your personal situation. It kinda is impossible to have a reason for anything. Lets turn the situation around by instead of actively killing someone,you have to take action to safe someone. You are dead and someone else is going to die, you can however press a button to safe him. What reason is there for pressing the button?
you can't press buttons while dead so you either admit you're alive and need a reason(like here: "because you're angry") or just stay dead and stop talking.
|
On July 28 2016 13:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 06:29 OtherWorld wrote:On July 27 2016 23:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful? Corporations can sell cars. Corporations can't sell public transit. US is capitalistic and oligarchic US prefers cars Corporations can sell public transit, both through providing the service and through providing the means (yes, when you see buses on the road, someone had to build and sell them). Actually, I think a company which would build silent, safe, not too slow, and decently eco-friendly public transports (buses, most likely) would make good money, because you wouldn't have to spend money in advertising shit to everyone, you'd just have to get a contract with the mayor and then the $$$ would start rolling. There have always been private mass transit, its just that its not cheap. Taxi Lift Uber etc... People pay high prices for travel if they don't have their own transport. Public Transit is cheap specifically because its not for profit.
What I'm telling you is that even through "cheap" public transports (which are only cheap because they operate at a loss), there are corporations making profits by selling buses etc to the cities. Thus wjhile public transit is cheap because it's intended to be cheap, it has nothing to do with mass transit, it's just policies. You could imagine cars belonging to the city and being rented to citiizens for very cheap.
|
On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
public transport takes you from one central point to another but usually you have to walk to reach your exact destination. That walks add up to an uncomfortable length sometimes. In a day I have to both go to school and work (home > school > work > home) I end up walking 7km and I use all available public transport options.
For bikes to be practical you need proper bike roads and a mild + little rain climate. I don't like cars as an engineer but they have some points.
|
On July 28 2016 12:52 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Help me understand degreaser please...
How does WD40 compare to say decreaser for dishes, or decreaser for countertops and appliances, or decreaser for my bicycle.
When do I use what... Is there some science to this madness?
Uhh specific to your question is pretty obvious you would only use on bike chain. Technically wd40 is not really a degreaser even (like brake clean or engine degreaser) it's a water displacing penetrant but it's used as a fairly all purpose lubricant it's more for rust protection/breaking things free than degreasing. You don't use it in household things because it's petroleum based and thus worse than what you are trying to clean off. In a case of extreme degreasing of range top or something you are much better off with aforementioned engine degreaser or brake clean if you want to use a shop product over standard household stuffs.
If you want to know chemical specifics between petroleum based shop degreasers and say dish soap im sure you could look but they are completely different.
P.s there is no public transport besides school buses within 250 miles of where I live. I mean roads are heavily subsidized/government provided so that basically is public transport anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
