[Fri Aug 19 16:59:37 2022] index.cgi: CGI::param called in list context from /home/kevin/sites/csua.com/PRODUCTION/index.cgi line 78, this can lead to vulnerabilities. See the warning in "Fetching the value or values of a single named parameter" at /usr/share/perl5/CGI.pm line 415. Entry 50206 (Berkeley CSUA MOTD)
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50206
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/08/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2008/6/10-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50206 Activity:moderate
6/10    What I have been saying for years is now finally going mainstream:
        "High Fuel Costs Could Spur a New Rationalism"
        \_ I sure hope this is going mainstream.  But most drives I see on the
           roads are still solo drivers, the freeways are not getting less
           congested, and my wife doesn't see BART trains getting more crowded.
           \_ That's because those supposed solutions are crap. The real
              solution is to use small, efficient vehicles, and have protected
              paths for low-impact stuff like bikes. 60-80 mpg is not
              unreasonable from a small car. You can do better by regulating
              things, for example ensuring that on-ramps are long enough to
              accommodate slow-accelerating cars, or improving safety by
              limiting large vehicles which make small cars more dangerous by
              blocking their vision and being dangerous in crashes due to their
              mass and ride height.
              Clearly people like fast personal transportation. Improving that
              technology is going to be much more useful than trying to force
              people to give it up.
              \_ Once again, the solution is NOT technology. Creating
                 new infrastructures and testing, etc uses MORE energy.
                 The solution is to REVERSE technology. Kill everyone
                 and every innovations, and there will be no more
                 energy use.
             \_ It is worth pursuing more than one line of solution at a
                 time, since the problem is so large and there is probably
                 not going to be a one-size-fits all solution. All your
                 solutions are going to take years, and we need to find a
                 cheap way to get people to work in the meantime. I envision
                 a smart car train, where people get into their individual
                 pods at home, but then join the "train" for longer distance.
                 You can get really good energy efficiency that way, while
                 still giving the misanthropes their "personal space," but
                 this is obviously a long ways off.
                \_ The problem isn't really "privacy for misanthropes" but
                   1) going to and from where you want to go, when you want
                      to go there, and quickly
                   2) versatility and convenience in carrying stuff
                   3) comfort
                   In most cases mass transit simply doesn't do #1 which is
                   the important one. More efficient taxis could help. At
                   least people using taxis reduces the need for parking lots.
                   AI-driven taxis could be cool, someday. If people entered
                   their transit request to a taxi company then they could
                   coordinate the routes to be able to carry a multiple
                   people per taxi in many cases. That wouldn't require AI
                   taxis, just smart dispatching software.
                   As usual, the existence of government controlled transit
                   operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
                   are probably not optimal.
                   \_ #1 has been solved by all the really big cities in the
                      world with elevators and one minute headway train systems.
                      But you need much greater density than most American
                      cities for this to work. Personal transit does not
                      really work in a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong, anyway.
                      #2 is solved by putting stores selling what you need
                      within very close walking distance of your home.
                      \_ Have you ever been to Texas? Asking big fat Americans
                         to walk to where they need to be is very unAmerican
                         and unPatriotic.
                         \_ Don't interrupt my posts. And you can ask people
                            \_ I will
                            to do whatever you want, just don't expect them
                            \_ interrupt
                            to do it because you are obviously smarter than
                            \_ as I see fit
                            \_ mind you this this a free country
                      \_ The problem is solved by MOVING close to where
                         you normally have to go (work).
                         \_ you can't move in CA.  if you do, you get hit with the
                            new property tax hit of 1000 percent to make up for
                            all the old people who haven't been properly taxed
                            since 1978.  i am slightly serious about this.
                            \_ you mean "all the corporations"
                         \_ That doesn't solve it. It's impractical to
                            move every time you change jobs, housing is
                            not freely available, people go other places
                            than their job (and so they should).
                      \_ Obviously, a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong is
                         different. Different places are different. Tokyo can
                         still require a lot of walking... there are
                         still lots of places that are hard to get to on
                         the trains/subways. Tokyo also has lots of taxis.
                         Your #2 "solution" is not a real solution.
                         \_ It works all over the world. And what is wrong
                            with walking? Walking is good for you.
                            \_ No, it doesn't. Feel free to walk if you want.
                               \_ Yes, it does. The majority of the world's
                                  population do not own cars, so they do their
                                  shopping the old fashioned way, on foot. Feel
                                  free to be a lazy fatass who pays $200 to
                                  fill up his Escalate if you want, too. Just
                                  don't bitch about it on the motd.
                \_ When you say "the existence of government controlled transit
                   operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
                   are probably not optimal." are you referring to things like
                                  \_ You're the one bitching and blanketing ppl
                                     as lazy fatasses. What about people with
                                     legitimate physical problems? I suppose we
                                     should euthanize them for the good of the
                                     species. What if you live somewhere with
                                     bad weather? You're presenting a false
                                     dichotomy: the Escalade is one extreme of
                                     personal transportation. Why did you
                                     even bring it up?
                                     The majority of the world's population
                                     lives in fucking shitty conditions and
                                     have no choice. They do things like walk
                                     long distances with giant loads of junk
                                     carried on their backs, like pieces of
                                     corrugated steel they found which they
                                     are lugging back to add on to their tiny
                                     shack where they sleep on the floor with
                                     their various relatives and have no
                                     running water.
                                     Maybe you should move to one of those
                                     places. Or just feed yourself to some
                                     animals and stop wasting resources.
                                     \_ The guy with the Escalade is going to
                                        have to give up a bit so that the guy
                                        carrying the steel on his back can live
                                        a little better. A good think, imnsho.
                                        a little better. A good thing, imnsho.
           \_ The Fremont->SF BART line did get more crowded during morning
              commute hours these days.
2022/08/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/7/29-9/24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54446 Activity:nil
7/29    Is it really true that we subsidize auto driving to the tune of
        $5k/yr? Shit I could probably hire a private driver for less...
        \_ You might have missed the point.  Hiring a chauffeur to drive your
           private vehicle won't change the amount of gasoline your private
           vehicle use or the amount of real estate it uses on freeways and
2012/5/25-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54400 Activity:nil
5/25    Sorry suburban hicks, properties in walkable cities retain
        better values:
2012/3/5-26 [Reference/BayArea, Transportation/Car] UID:54326 Activity:nil
3/5     What's a good place in the south bay for families where you can
        meet other stroller moms and dads? So far people tell me that
        Santa Clara has a bad school district, San Jose is cheap but
        only if you can tolerate the commute, Mountain View Castro is
        better for singles, Los Altos Palo Altos is great if you can
        afford it. Where else is good?
2011/7/10-8/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54141 Activity:nil
7/8     Is there some reason we can't have mass market nat gas cars?
        \_ Not enough infrastructure for refuing.  Chicken and egg.
        \_ Not enough infrastructure for refueling.  Chicken and egg.
        \_ It has less than half the energy density of gasoline.  -tom
           \_ So you have to compress it, which results in huge explosions
              during a crash. Same for flywheel tech.
2009/11/23-12/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:53540 Activity:moderate
 11/23  "Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto"
        \_ what do you propose we average Joes do about climate warning?
           Oh really? Yeah, exactly.
           \_ Make life choices which reduce your carbon impact.  Communicate
              with your representatives that you consider this an important
2009/4/6-13 [Reference/Tax, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:52808 Activity:high
4/6     Alameda sales tax is now 9.75%. that's pretty rough. sales
        tax is regressive.  Some boneheaded Oakland city council member
        wants to raise Oakland sales tax even more, in this
        recession. - motd liberal
        \_ Yes, the sales tax, car tax, and income tax increases enacted by the
           state legislature are the largest in history, and massively
2014/1/24-2/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54765 Activity:nil
1/24    "Jimmy Carter's 1977 Unpleasant Energy Talk, No Longer Unpleasant"
        link:www.csua.org/u/128q (http://www.linkedin.com
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
5/7     http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second"
        http://www.csua.org/u/yk6 (news.yahoo.com)
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
2012/12/7-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54550 Activity:nil
12/7    Even oil exporters like UAE and Saudi Arabia are embracing solar
        energy: http://www.csua.org/u/ylq
        We are so behind.
Cache (8192 bytes)
Print this Story Very Good (300 Ratings) 3356676/5 Posted on Monday, June 9, 2008, 12:00AM Gas prices are at $4 a gallon and still headed north. So far, the obvious things have happened: SUV sales are plummeting, airlines are mothballing gas-guzzling planes, Americans are driving fewer miles for the first time in modern history, and mass-transit ridership is growing everywhere. Higher Cost, Less Use That's pretty much what economics would predict. When something gets more expensive, people try to avoid the pain. The best way to avoid the pain of higher gas prices is to use less of it. I will add, perhaps gratuitously, that the behavioral changes we're seeing now are exactly why we should have implemented a carbon tax (with offsetting income tax or payroll tax cuts) 10 years ago. Given that we have to raise revenue somehow, we ought to do it by taxing behaviors that we would prefer to discourage. Those who pay the most under a carbon tax are those who are the most intensive energy users -- and therefore impose the greatest environmental costs on the rest of us. Making them pay more seems fair to me, provided there's some cushion for low-income workers who have no choice but to commute long distances. The point of this column is that are still a lot more shoes to drop as the result of high oil prices. If gas prices stay high -- and I have every reason to believe they will -- then we can expect a series of other social changes that are less obvious and longer term. Economists speak about the "short run" and the "long run." In the "short run," many factors of production are fixed, meaning that individuals and firms can only modify their behavior in some ways. A person can start taking the train to work in the short run, for example, but he can't easily sell his house and buy a smaller condominium with a shorter commute. In the "long run", everything is up for grabs -- where we live, how we live, how we get around, and even where we go. Smart folks ought to start thinking about what happens when energy prices are four or five times what they've been for most of the automobile age. It's not rocket science: Prices go up, and rational people and firms try to avoid those higher costs. Rational Steps Here's my list of what this means in the long run: 1 Dump the McMansion. There's been so much wreckage across the real estate market that we've neglected likely trends. But the definition of a good location is certainly different if gas is $4 a gallon -- let alone $6 or $8. Those giant houses 50 and 60 miles from the metro core now have three strikes against them: 1) Low-density development is rarely near public transit; Other neighborhoods will emerge as a lot more attractive. We'll hear real estate agents say things like, "And you can walk to the train station." Americans might even develop more of a taste for condos and apartments. Nothing lowers the utility bill in the winter quite like having a common wall on two sides and heat wafting up from the apartment below. Suppose you're considering two jobs: One is in a building three blocks from the commuter train station, and the other is in an office complex 21 miles away from anything except cornfields. In 1989, the retailer Sears closed its headquarters in the Sears Tower, a Chicago skyscraper, and moved 5,500 workers to a lower-cost campus in suburban Hoffman Estates, 30 miles from downtown and virtually inaccessible from most parts of the region by public transit. That kind of thing just isn't going to happen as much anymore. Sure, firms will still be looking for low-cost real estate, but they usually need high-quality workers even more -- and mandating long, expensive commutes is a good way to lose scarce human capital. Part of this is driven by more expensive gas, as described above. Worsening traffic congestion will make long commutes more costly in terms of time, not just money. Many aging baby boomers will seek urban culture and entertainment offerings (and more diverse housing choices) as they find themselves "empty nesters." Violent crime -- often one of top reasons for fleeing cities -- has been falling steadily for more than a decade. Both Chicago and New York City had the fewest number of homicides in 2007 than in any year since the mid-1960s. They tend to be lovely places, and most urban areas still haven't managed to cobble together decent public schools for middle-class families. But for the first time in a long time, basic economic forces will favor density over decentralization. At some point, we'll develop a better source of energy than oil. But it's going to happen, and the nation that's first in making that important discovery (or series of discoveries) will enjoy a huge economic windfall -- not unlike what the Internet has bestowed on the United States, and on Silicon Valley in particular. If we want to be that "first mover," then the US government should be investing Manhattan Project-type sums in alternative energy research. The private sector does a terrific job of turning knowledge into products, but only near the end of the product chain. Basic research -- the kinds of discoveries that are essential to progress but can't be patented -- is the catalyst for that process. Let's not forget that the Internet grew out of work that began in the Defense Department and was cultivated at Stanford and Berkeley. "Smart growth" advocates have been calling for these kinds of policy changes for decades: More redevelopment in existing urban centers (as opposed to new "greenfield" sites far from existing infrastructure); more coordination between new housing and public transit; It's ironic that $4 gas will encourage all of those things for reasons that have nothing to do with altruism. Of course, it's also true that if we'd implemented more of those policies in the past, such as more investments in public transit, then high gas prices wouldn't be biting us as much as they are now. Terms of Service including spam, hateful, or obscene messages may result in the termination of your Yahoo! is not responsible or liable in any way for comments posted by its users. Rate It: Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 4000 characters left. Report Abuse + Overall: 1/5 I agree with the author that people are changing their habits because of high fuel costs, but I disagree that this is a good thing. A few facts that have already been noted are: 1 People moved away from cities because they are horrible (with few exceptions) places to live and raise a family. Why are we not moving in the direction of energy independence? Because some would rather punish this great country with high costs and taxes until the citizens can't bear the finacial hardships, begging the givernment for handouts. The liberal gov't wants to regulate and control all aspects business, production, and of the citizen's life. Once they have this control things like global warming, drilling in ANWR and off the coasts will not be an issue. Miraculously, it will be discovered that the "facts" were wrong - humans had virtually no impact on the cycles that control the global temperature. Miraculously, it will be discovered that technology has developed techniques to drill for oil with virtually no impact on the environment. Miraculously, it will be discovered that nuclear power is a wonderful clean alternative to coal power. Miraculously, the environmental activists have been able to remove these facts from the citizens' source of knowledge (ie: the 6 o'clock news). In the "short run" you will see the things that are written about in this article. In the "long run" the citizens will have enough of being force fed falsehoods about global warming, polar bears, and 3 legged spotted newts and revolt against the leberal crap. Report Abuse + Overall: 5/5 The free market ideology got us into this mess. Now new economic realites will shape the adjustment to radical growth, and the solutions look a lot like regional planning. It's a great article - though I would encourage economic incentives to revitalize and regain cities. We can't all McMansion and ruin all our farmland so we can't grow our own food. Report Abuse + Overall: 1/5 CW - Poor people have b...