Don't know why I want to feed the troll -- and explicitly not accepting the assertions I don't challenge here, but...

You talk about "traffic flow" -- but think about this for a minute. You're proposing to take a very high-population, dense chunk of city -- plugged into the rest of that city's transportation network -- and move it out into the middle of nowhere.

Have you looked at the level of car ownership in high-density areas recently -- particularly in lower-income high-density areas? How exactly do you expect folks to get to work or school when they're suddenly no longer in an area with transit access? (And without that, how do you expect folks to work, or go to school to improve their circumstances? Would you rather be buying the same number of heads worth of homeless shelter, and getting no tax base at all)?

Hell. I'm in the rich part (financial district) of downtown Chicago, and less than half my neighbors if that own cars if that; being in walking distance from work (and directly next to a stop for every single L line) is why people pay to live in the Loop. Owning a vehicle is expensive in a city -- heck, parking wherever you're going to is expensive in and of itself, as is having a place to park that vehicle at home (in my building, a parking spot costs about $30k to buy, or rents for upward of $200/mo). You can't take folks who can't afford decent housing unassisted, move them away from their jobs, and expect them all to be able to buy, maintain and fuel vehicles -- and park those vehicles near their jobs in the city -- when they were only barely making ends meet beforehand. It's insane.

--Aunt Tillie could probably roll her own kernel if you gave her a webpage with good instructions that would compile it for her and then prompt where to save the download ;-)

--Of course there's no guarantee of no-malware-included at that point, but ease-of-use matters quite a bit for some people.

--I'm with you on that, mang :-)

--Just FYI from a rider, there is some conflicting information out there:

https://rideapart.com/articles...

> Every helmet maker ever will tell you not to apply Rain-X or something similar to your visor. However, weâ(TM)ve been doing it for years with no ill effects. It causes water to quickly bead up and run off, aiding vision. Itâ(TM)s said to reduce the effective life of your shield, but weâ(TM)re replacing our clear visors once a year anyway due to scratches and whatnot. So itâ(TM)s definitely worth considering if youâ(TM)re regularly riding in wet road conditions.

http://www.triumphrat.net/spri...

> First, what is Rain-X and why is it a problem for visors? Itâ(TM)s a mixture of ethanol, acetone and isopropyl alcohol with a bit of silicone thrown it. Those three solventsâ"quite aggressiveâ"super clean the surface and leave behind a molecular layer of silicone that causes water to bead and shed. The product was originally intended for glass windshields and the company that currently owns the trademarkâ"ITW Brandsâ"says it is not recommend for plastic. The problem material is the acetone, which can soften and craze acrylics and polycarbonates.
.
.
.
>> The best reason not to use Rain-X is that there are better cleaner/rain-repellant products, specifically paste-type cleaners that are basically emulsifiers with a little isopropyl alcohol thrown in as a solvent and silicone or wax to act as surfactants, causing water to bead and blow off. I tested a half dozen of these and the two best were LP Acrylic Polish and Sealant and 210 Plastic Scratch Remover. Others, such as Plexus, perform similarly.

--I wish I had mod points. That's pretty creative :-)

--I trust you're behind a firewall/router, but have you ever had any logged intrusion attempts on the drive?