HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:

You should know we have galleries, and fine local theaters, and great
restaurants here too. As for home prices, they are rather high in most
large cities. And people do interesting things around here too. At a
Japanese restaurant, recently, I met a guy who flies Jerry Jones private
jet around much of the world. And, believe it or not, we have writers
in Texas too. Hell, some of use can even READ. Grin.

The presence of galleries and buildings called theaters doesn't mean
that there's really a creative community there. These things are
everywhere but often pride themselves on importing the best work from
Broadway, Soho, London, etc. Austin has a creative scene; Houston's art
scene is basically New York and Paris redux imported for the local rich.

To have theater that's not just a bunch of college academic drama folks
doing plays written and first produced in New York or London, you need a
real creative community, which takes having good cheap housing and
reliable public transportation, and jobs that leave people with energy
to do that creative work until they start making money at it. Some
people may be working at universities for this, but the best thing is
living in a big world city, at least for a few years.

But why put oneself through the masochism inherent in living in a very
large city? I like to visit Chicago's museums sometimes when I'm in the
Midwest, but I sure don't want to live there. Same with NYC and LA.

Plays and concerts (classical and rock) are far less expensive to attend
here in Albuquerque than they are in big cities, and there are good
actors in the plays (this is a movie making state--many big name stars
live here most of the year, as well as minor actors).

My daughter's planning to go to grad school in Buffalo NY (art
conservation), but plans to go back to the Southwest as soon as she
graduates. She's visited NYC and LA to visit friends, and was
underwhelmed by both of them.

You have a handful of writers in Austin, mainly because the rent is
cheap. A few of them are from Texas.

There are probably more writers per capita in TX, CO, NM, and AZ than
any other states in the US. Inexpensive to live in, and plenty to write
about, because people are real there.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:



People who wouldn't WANT that are dying or boring.

Ah, it becomes clear.
Anyone who's not like you is dying or boring.

One can like those things without being like me. People who aren't
interested in a range of things are boring.

Some of the most fascinating people I've met are ardently enthusiastic
about one thing, and one thing only. They don't care a whit about a
range of things. They have their passion and for them, that's enough.
I may not share their passion, but I certainly don't find them boring.

Exactly. What's boring about someone who's found a job or hobby that's
their passion? Even if it's not your passion?

This is a camera group, though we're crossposting to the groups that
aren't very useful for good information. I don't remember seeing you in
the group I'm subscribed to, so I think I'll fix this newsreader to
block the posts from the other groups.

When car people start yammering about how cars are just so wonderful,
they bore me. I've owned one. I may have to own one again in the
future, but I've heard the cliche about how much freedom they give
enough. Time to make you all go back to the group from whence you came.

How do you get to a place not served by public transportation? Say,
making a trip to Shenandoah NP, Gettysburg, or the Catskills? If I lived
over there again (Edgewood, MD in the early 70s), I'd be driving.

Incidentally, I never set foot in Philly in the two years I lived over
there, as Philly natives I worked with considered it an awful place to
visit (or live) at the time. DC was OK if you stuck to the tourist areas.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Pat O'Connell wrote:

Adjunct: "A person who is an assistant or subordinate to another." We're
all adjuncts then, except for a few executives and proprietors.

It has a special meaning in academia. It means they don't pay benefits
but we don't have to take part in academic meetings and politics.

I haven't heard that term at either Purdue or UNM, where I got my
degrees. Must be nearly unique to your school, or maybe it's an East
Coast school kind of position, like a teaching assistant. I realize
you're fairly young, but no bennies would suck if you ever needed
medical care (say, a bicycle accident). Think about that...

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:51:23 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article om,
" wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

If Oregon wants to keep its roads safe, they need to take geezers who
can't see in the dark well enough to drive off the roads.
I think there are plenty of geezers who can see in the dark well enough
to drive off the roads.
If the old can see in the dark well enough to drive on the roads, then
they can have their cars.
I think you need to check your own reading comprehension, or I need to
find a bag full of emoticons.

Oregon should refuse driving licenses to people who can't see well
enough to drive safely at night.

I think you just like complaining!
No, I just don't like car people who lie about how much freedom cars
give. I had one. They don't.
Your personal experience was universal, then?

I'm a pretty average person.

P.S. I'm neither dead nor boring, but I sure don't want to live in a
big city!
Nobody can tell if she or he is boring or not.
Nobody who is a sociopath and incapable of recognizing others' feedback
can tell if he or she is boring. Luckily, I am not a sociopath and I
am capable of recognizing the feedback I get from others with whom I
interact.

No sociopath knows he's a sociopath. "

Most men are excruciatingly boring.
Most generalizations are wrong. (Do I need to mention emoticons again,
or did you get that one?)

You're being a bore now. Thanks and good bye.

P.P.S. I do like good science fiction, though. What was the name of
your novel?
The one that paid for the bathroom isn't coming out until February 2007.
I like David Weber's work a lot. While we're making generalizations,
do you think I'll like yours?

No, you won't.
Probably a diatribe about how cars will cause the end of humanity, and
the destruction of the universe.

With a forward by Al Gore, no doubt. :-)

Heh.

Al probably drives a regular car, maybe a hybrid. He certainly doesn't
take public transportation, as he lives in rural Tennessee.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:


What you said (and what I was responding to) was this:
"The problem with poverty in the US is that not only do you get to be
poor, you're forced to buy and maintain a car."
If you now want to say "most", fine.

Most people who are poor in the US, okay

You're doing what a lot of people do: you're overstating your case.

Who was it who took an average of murder rates without any high murder
rate southern states to compare against NYC without looking at
individual states with similar demographics?

Plus, you're being dishonest: hoiw much of that $5-10K you say the
poor must spend on a car are you paying for public transit (in total,
including taxes) as well as higher rent?

I'm paying a little under $1,000 for public trans a year and maybe
another $100 a year on taxis (if that). My housing costs are $520 a
month (including insurance and taxes, not counting utilities) for a two
bedroom, one bath row house with a stone walled back yard. I can walk
my dog to the vet's, can take the train to work (train station about two
blocks away). My car had been paid for, so all the out of pocket
expenses I had on that were insurance, gas, and maintenance, which on an
older car is considerable.

If anything happened to my car, I was stranded.

It's been my experience that people who overstate their case, and are
dishonest about it, have an agenda.

Like the pro-capital punishment guy whose stats didn't match what I
found?

What I don't like about cars is being forced to own one, so I live in a
city where I could buy a cheap house (compared to any number of places,
then) and would not have to have a car. Cars may be freedom for some
people, but for most, they're a requirement that's much more an economic
burden than anything else.

We've been reading posts from someone whose night vision makes him a
dangerous driver, who doesn't feel that he has any choice other than to
put other people at risk to live his life. I've heard of people not
being able to get jobs because they didn't have cars, of having to
budget not just between housing and food, but housing, food, car
insurance, and car repairs.

I said the US was car-centric. The other person started yammering about
how we love cars because we love freedom. Most people have a car
because they can't live without one, because most jobs outside of cities
and certain small towns are not near work places. Driving a car in rush
hour traffic to get to work is not the ideal use of a car.

When I lived in Virginia, we had people who moved to rural Virginia to
get their kids away from drugs and crime. No amount of "we've got
14,000 people here and a murder or two every year" could get them to
think that one through. That's a murder rate per 100,000 well over
NY's. It looked idyllic. The drug kids didn't stop using drugs. Some
of the vacation home owners were burglarized multiple times in the years
that they owned their homes. But we only showed a couple of burglaries
a week in the local paper. Nobody ever burglarized an occupied building
because everyone had guns, but burglaries of unoccupied buildings were
quite common.

One of my students had been a NYC homocide cop. One of my other
students was telling her about a community that had a murder a week.
She laughed and said something about the murders in NYC. The other
student explained that the community was only 400 people.

Was it Dupo, IL across the river from St. Louis MO? I've heard about
that town. Mostly white, and violence is connected with the bars in that
town.

The hysteria about large Northern Cities tends to look unrealistic.
Most murders are between people who know each other, who are often
involved in illegal activities, and who are often inadequately policed
(the poor often find that the police trivialize their complaints), and
were brought up in cultures that believe violence, lethal and otherwise,
is a way to solve problems (a legacy of slavery).

I'll disagree about violence being a legacy of slavery. Poverty, maybe.
There are a lot of whites and Hispanics that kill each other as well,
and neither of these groups have slave ancestors, though subgroups in
them do have a violent culture.

Most murders are domestic violence, or similar cases where the shooter
and the victim know each other well. Holdups and gang shootings are
actually far less common.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:09:25 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:49:23 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually
through taxes.
There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline
companies.
This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport

is more like what I'm talking about.
That may be, but you did say, "mass transit."
Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass
transit", I get a different thing than "public transit."
For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets:
========
Definitions of mass transit on the Web:

* Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway.
commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp

* A term used to describe public transportation facilities and
vehicles such as rapid rail and buses.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm

* Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the
passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called
public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean
rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled
airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that
transports members of the general public.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit
========

I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass
transit, though all would agree they are public transportation.
And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear
of city trolleys?
I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public
in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'.
How else would one define it?
As public transport.
Try looking for a definition of "mass transit".
Other places than Wikipedia, anyway.
So, if someone volunteers to take handicapped people to the grocery
store, one at a time, that's mass transit? I think not.
It is 'public transport', given that anyone is accepted, but since when
is 1 a 'mass' of people?

Evidently, you didn't look very hard.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...en-US:official
just a start.
Note that mass transit is usually considered to mean those systems
that are paid for by the public at large, not the passengers.
I call that 'public transportation'. It may, or may not, be
transporting many people. I believe the local 'handivan' system is tax
supported, but the number it transports wouldn't invite me to consider
it 'mass transportation'. However, a 747 certainly IS, even if it isn't
supported by tax money.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:50:00 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Humm. 400 people. 1 murder/week. 52 weeks/ year. Doesn't come out to
4 years to me, but rather closer to 8 years. Of course that doesn't
take into consideration that most people would get smart and MOVE in a
few months.

You forget that each murder takes out two people. The perpetrator and
the victim. I'm assuming detection would be 100% in such a small
community.

What is one guy is doing them all? Grin.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
William Graham wrote:

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought
I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was
never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV
or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by
the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I
realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier
during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you
guys on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for
another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the
road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not
alone....Thousands of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to
run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it
before
it's too late.
I, for one, appreciate the warning, and will take appropriate
precautionary measures.

Well, that's a more reasonable answer that that of Ken Lucke, who
apparently thinks I will go away because he puts me in his kill
file.....:^)
I suggest that you institute some program of testing the night vision
of drivers. They will either restrict the driving of those whose vision
is inadequate to daylight hours, or provide better lighting on the main
roads, or both. The tacit assumption that because one can see and drive
very well during daylight hours, they must also be safe night drivers is
very false, and I believe it is high time something was done about it.
How about a person of 71 years who KNOWS he doesn't see well enough to
drive at night being responsible, and rational, enough to NOT DRIVE AT
NIGHT? Naww, that would entail a person taking responsibility for his OWN
ACTIONS.

Even my older brother, who used to scare me to death by following too
close, has changed his habits since he realizes that at 78 his responses
aren't what they used to be, and now maintains a more sensible distance
from the driver in front of him. He used to adjust his distance so that
he couldn't see their license plate! CRAZY!

But he still drives, right? - And there's a good reason for that....He can't
get where he needs to go ANY OTHER WAY.
Do you think there's a message in there somewhere?
Look. We can make this personal, and about me. Or we can extend the
problem to where it really needs to be....To a general problem that's not
getting any better that affects the whole society. I partially solved my
problem this New Year's Eve by getting a motel room in Silverton, so I will
only have to drive 4 miles after dark, instead of 20. but not everyone can
afford, or is willing to go that far. And I will still have to drive over 4
miles after dark this Sunday evening. My motel room will cost me about
$80.....


Actually, he drives quite well now, and should he not feel able to get
there himself, he has a daughter who would be happy to drive him, and,
since he lives in Chicago suburbs, he has train, taxi, limo, and bus
service to call upon. He plans to stop driving when he turns 80 (his
current license expires then), or when he feels he isn't able to do so
safely.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:56:06 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

Don't be quite so condescending.
I never said anything to indicate I am scared. I pointed out that
there are problems with electric cars that most people don't think of,
and that they can be overcome.
And, why would we need to find a way that embraces expensive and
scarce energy? Shouldn't we be looking for a way to embrace
inexpensive and easily available energy?

I first visited America in the early 70s. One thing surprised me. My
hosts were incapable of rational discussion on the subject of
communism. (Which they confused with socialism.) Anyway, they were
frightened of it. I now detect the same regarding energy and
pollution. I'm sure I over-generalise. But I'm definitely detecting
it here.

Communism and socialism are quite similar, differing only in who decides
how goods and services are be distributed, and by whom.

William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:36:37 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Well, I claim
that the cars of the future will run on electricity.....Some combination
of
storage batteries and/or on board generators that don't burn gasoline will
power them. Or, they may pick up power from the roads they run on. But
however they do it, they will be an individual transportation system that
is
capable of taking one or more individuals to their specific destination,
and
not be a mass transit system. Furthermore, it will happen as soon as it is
economically necessary, and not a minute before.
You're focusing on the means of power delivery. Now apply your mighty
intellect to where the power is going to ultimately come from.

That was solved over 50 years ago.....Nuclear power......Right now, 60% pf
the power we use here in the US comes from burning coal. For some crazy
reason, we are way behind on the utilization of nuclear power....That will
have to change......


It won't, because uneducated people have been so scared by those who
have financial interest in other fuels that they go bonkers at the mere
mention of nuclear power.
I gas-powered plant can blow up and it gets 3 inches on page 20, but let
a valve malfunction in a nuclear plant, and it is front page news.