Thank You!
I always found it funny how the people that always use science and "facts" to prove their points don't know how to use math or science. May as well throw in economics. Do not forget, the media is in it to make money too and if you are gullible enough to believe the sources they give you and follow them you are supporting their lies and fallacies.
You need resources to live. Economics, a social science, is about resources not just money. That is how to get food on the table for billions of people. But ignorant political rhetoric has made you dangerously oblivious to it.
Maybe if Democrats realized that spending 50%+ of your income on housing is a bad idea and made it more affordable it would help. Denial won't fix the problem there is a reason all of the top cities for homelessness are democrat. Then they add more wants to the list claim economic success even though most people cant afford to live there andignore the growing problems they have. The reality is that they are too lazy to do their job and want the government to do everything for them (then complain when the only option they have - the government - doesn't work well and they are stuck with it because it's their only option.) Like it or not many places around the country see cities like SF (and states like California) more like a plague. Not only do they have their own problems, they burden others with people moving out of them and buying up housing in cheaper cities and states, driving up the housing to unaffordable levels in other cities that do not have the infrastructure or paying jobs to support them.
Democrat cities = want everything & have higher homelessness rates. High housing costs.
Republican cities = Fend for yourself but affordable housing and lower homeless rates.
Take your pick.
Really?? Economic success?? For the rich I suppose. Talk about offensive.
Economics is about the balance and distribution of resources. Housing is one of those. Your economy may be good with jobs but sucks when it comes to housing and living costs. You do not claim economic success when housing costs are among the highest in the country. For me it means nothing if I can't afford to live there to take advantage of your "good economy". Do not forget, when you have the government pay for something else, that money has to come from somewhere. It is a balance after all. Some people seem to forget that and want everything and ignore the people who have to suffer because of your wants.
Maybe pay a teenager to design something. It would probably be more effective.
Otherwise, The engineers may want to consider spending time around kids or have some of their own to understand how they think. When I was younger I was all about circumventing restrictions and monitoring.
Knew someone who drank 20 - 25 cups a day and while that may not significantly stiffen arteries, it definitely wrecked havoc on his nerves.
This guy was in shape, strong and wasn't someone to sit on the couch all day... but
He was always super high strung and nervous.
& died of a heart attack in front of his wife and daughter.
It was determined the stress on his heart from being high strung and nervous all the time were likely the cause.
I think the up to part is one of those duh things. It could be 1 cup for some people and up to 25 if you are really lucky. However, I don't recommend it. Stiff arteries are only part of the equation.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what people find necessary about this. I am all for medical legality of drugs but don't slap RECREATIONAL on a drug then call it medically necessary for people. I take drugs to make me feel better but I still need to go to a doctor and get a prescription. It is not a reason to make it "recreational"
Additionally, If Denver and Colorado are going to focus on laws that could potentially draw even more people here they need to do something about the infrastructure and cost of living FIRST. The cost of housing has skyrocketed since the flood of people that came here for pot years ago.. and now as my family and I were saving to get a home this happens.Thanks a lot.
RECREATIONAL drugs are apparently more important than families having homes. It doesn't help that the places people come from make Denver look cheap (example a large state on the west coast) so they put even more strain on the housing market here.
Denver does not need to be the national guinea pig. It needs to stop. Legal retaliation? Class action? something.
This is the danger of making cities overly attractive AND making it hard or expensive for builders to build. Quality of life is great but not planning for infrastructure and taking the people who currently live in these cities in account (as in how they won't be able to afford to live life if people start/keep moving in on them) is a disaster like this waiting to happen. Just like its happening where I am.
Then, people / companies from expensive cities start taking their money and buying up real estate in cheaper cities, jacking up prices there and messing up the infrastructure in those cities who are not prepared for the population growth... Where I am California is moving here to get away from their "expensive cities" jacking up prices here... locals are tired of it.. Now people who have lived in the cheaper cities can barely afford to rent, let alone get a home in the future. In my opinion the expensive cities are a plague on other cities receiving their refugees. It seems to cause a chain reaction.
People / cities do not think about the full consequences of their "I/we want(s)" that lead to this attractiveness. There should be a large infrastructure tax you are required to pay based on the offset of the cost of living from where you come from to where you are moving... When someone tries to move to a cheaper market that tax would go toward that cheaper market to help build infrastructure / housing.
Question remains, how do the cities like SF fix this problem? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to further promote or allow population growth without making reasonable plans to make more structures for living?
Let's remove the jack for my powerless wired headphones and replace them with a wireless headset that needs charged every few hours and has additional components like batteries to add to our trash... great decision. No, don't worry its advancement, not spoiled people.
Not speaking about younger children but with young teens my experience is that once blocked from something they want to see, they will find other ways to get to it and diligently figure out how to hide that fact from you. Don't bet on figuring it out.
I have had better luck explaining what it is, why they shouldn't watch it and then telling them that I am going to give them the responsibility to not purposely view it. I also open the door to ask questions they have about it without cracking jokes or making fun of anyone (a trusting converstion). The point being they ask questions and not feel embarrassed doing it.They will hide things regardless and they will prefer asking friends and other people but that sense responsibility seems much more effective than being oppressive about it. When being oppressive, you better believe they will find somewhere else or some other method to find what they want to see/do. They will also be less open to you about what they are actually doing as well.
From what I have seen, the more restrictive you are about something, the more they do it once you have no control over them. They are growing people, they will be curious and they may try once the hormones start kicking in, but by then you probably have more important things to worry about than porn.
Keeping devices and services secure vs keeping them functional has always been a trade off, there is hardly ever a best of both worlds. Nor can you expect any of it to be perfect. Considering all the crap I have found on FB and the ridiculous things people believe and click not to mention just how bad so many peoples computers are (I see alot), I would prefer they have a scanner. The fact that people can't figure it out just points to why its needed, I would be willing to bet they are the ones with infected computers. Yes, maybe one that works better, but no one is forcing you to use their service, if it is that bad, don't use it.. better yet, maybe create your own platform, get the whole world to use it then balance its security and functionality, see how well that goes for you.
Everything that makes it big, like Facebook, seems to eventually grow out of its pants.
Hey we are making some cash, let's add this and that and bloat the system to the point where its nothing like it was, at least we will be rich!
Whatever comes around next will likely have the same issue. It will be great at first then history will repeat itself, even if the makers are aware of these issues, something will happen whether it be legal, social, etc.. There are always people that ruin it, which leads to changes, and then there is always tracking information and making money.
Everyone I know loved the old Facebook. Not a chat room, but just Facebook. Sure there were some issues, like annoying political posts that never change anyone's mind, news from the Onion that every old conservative believes (and will argue with you over) and the ridiculously stupid ones like Saturn will be the size of the moon in the night sky on April 22, 2019 - and people actually share it like its true!
However, it was great to keep tabs with each other and not scroll endlessly wondering if your browser will freeze before you find your friends post about the snail he found on his bedpost. Too many ads. There should be none in the news feed and less on the sidebars, hell my browser can only handle so much! I also want my feed in order, not based on an algorithm of what I should see first, nor should I have to click a drop down to sort the posts that way!
While we do have issues here with traffic but there are too many questions / issues:
- If they build above ground, the area near DIA up to Greeley is the west edge of tornado alley, what are the considerations about running it through that area? Weld county has a high volume of storms in late spring. Of course if it were in tunnels it would be safer (as far as weather is concerned) but more expensive.
- Where will it fit on the way to Vail? another thing to crowd out I-70?
- Will this violate the deal Colorado made with the company that is adding toll express lanes to the highways?
- Someone else mentioned ticket prices
- Concept is good but it is too new to know how well it will work
- Death trap? it is new so it is likely unregulated where it needs to be for safety.
- It's already expensive enough to live here, though the ones who seem to get these ideas are making good enough paychecks to not care, many of us do not. We like new technology and relaxed laws, it attracts more people that drive housing and other costs up. We need to stop at some point.
Though I think new technology is great, it should probably be tested on a smaller scale project first (IE just 2 cities not too far apart). So they can have some type of idea of what to expect from it. Denver's traffic is not as bad as other major cities, though it can suck, its nothing like Atlanta or Washington DC. Maybe invest in better routes and better access through the mountains. Even in the plains major roads between towns are limited.
I wonder how many people are going to come home to find Fluffy outside because it got out when the door opened.
Well hopefully Fluffy stays away from the road.
If encryption was lessened to where law enforcement can get in I wonder how many phones, including those of law enforcement agencies, will be compromised by those with malicious intent who figured out how to get in, either by hacks / mods / social engineering? Sounds like that would be a big problem as well. I hope they are as willing to pursue all of the cases where phones were decrypted by non-law enforcement and information is stolen from phone users. oops I hope I don't believe that.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
