Chapel Hill is also infamous for the number of people who commute into Chapel Hill (and even Orange County more general) from places like Durham, Mebane, even Raleigh. I don't know numbers, but I would assume--especially given the traffic on 15-501--that the vast and overwhelming majority are car drivers. One of my coworkers commutes to Durham every day from Carrboro. The trip takes around 20-25 minutes. She takes the bus sometimes, but my recollection is that it takes about 1.5 hours.

Light rail seems highly unlikely to substantially change any of the numbers.

Chapel Hill/Carrboro also has the big advantage of being a geographically compact area (though located in an ever expanding metro area), and a highly affluent population that is--compared to surrounding areas--very racially and economically homogenous. It strikes me that many areas around the country that have high rates of public transportation (and bicycling rates) meet similar criteria.

That's the balancing act. It really is purely a calculus of time and effort. I can drive to work work in 14 min (std dev ~1 min--roughly!). I can park in my driveway and immediately behind my office building. Public transportation is never going to be able to compete with that in time or convenience.

It seems to me that the "new reality" you're talking about is really called "urbanization" whereas in the Piedmont we have "suburbanization" with pockets of denser development surrounded by sprawl. I don't remember where I read this, but a list of the worst examples of suburban sprawl nationwide featured The Triad, The Triangle, and the Charlotte Metro area as three of the worst. Tons of awful and non-sustainable development is going in all around Chapel Hill, Durham, and the Triangle as a whole. I think it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better!

What's MRA?

Citation needed? Are you talking wonderbread or wholewheat sprouted grain bread?

Seven! That's such a rarity now... If you don't mind my asking, how do you like it? My wife and I both came from two-child households, and we have three kids (all under the age of 6). Our parents all thought it was bizarre and that we were crazy to have three kids. I kind of want more while my wife--who admittedly has to do most of the work of creating the child!--is not so sure right now. I'm always curious to hear other people's takes.

Am I the only person here who doesn't like Wired?

I remember back in the mid-to-late 90s when a friend had a subscription. It seemed like bunk to me--full-color glossy pages and a kind of self-congratulatory almost outside-in look at computers and geek culture. My friend (an artist and self-avowed geek) loved the magazine, while I (a programmer) just never got the appeal. I liked the programming magazines that gave code samples!

I can't say I've seen an issue of Wired in probably 10 years, but judging from the Wired blog sites like "GeekDad" it seems to me that it's still full-on geekporn rather than a real technical magazine. I'm quite sure that my experiences 15 years ago have biased me against Wired, but are my impressions at all correct?

No, I didn't mean to contradict you at all! I just meant that the Greeks aren't just similar to Slavic peoples, they really actually are Slavic people. (I'm sure some Greek people would disagree with my assertion, though!)

I have a question for you. The few times I have been in Europe specifically for business, the businesspeople in Switzerland and Belgium who I met with spoke rather derisively of the "southern Europeans." Certainly from the comments on Slashdot today there seems to be a lot of anger and, from my perspective, prejudice (justified or not is another question) against the southern European countries. The southern European countries also seem to just be doing what they've always done.

So my question is--given this, why did banks lend so much to Greece? This seems to me as criminal as the subprime loans in the US.

Slavian people? Are you referring to Slavs? The Greeks of today basically ARE Slavs (this is, of course, debatable), after the huge Slavic migrations during the late Byzantine and Islamic periods.

You're 100% correct, and I wrote poorly. We should belittle ISIS and their twisted beliefs.

What I was trying (again, poorly) to say was that we trivialize their beliefs at our own risk. President Obama saying pretty much "that's not true Islam" might make for a nice feel-good quote, but what's the point of the statement? Does he think ISIS is going to rethink their beliefs because a Christian from the US thinks they're interpreting the Qur'an wrong?

I disagree with everything you just wrote. There is a considerable overlap between fundamental and evangelical Christianity. No part of the definition of evangelical stresses that they are "about the church" or the "financial success" of the church. I think you are conflating evangelical with Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell breed of televangelist?

It is not true that an evangelical is just a church that does not have an exclusive territory assigned...that's jut not it at all.

I don't really care to get into a pedantic argument over definitions of different Christians sects, but on quick google for "what is an evangelical" (there's of course the WIkipedia page too, with a bullet point definition, see, e.g., the rise of fundamentalism in evangelical Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Fundamentalism) comes up with plenty of pages, from the horses mouth so to speak, that talks about what it means to be evangelical.

With all due respect, "everyone you're aware of" does not constitute probably much but a tiny fraction of the diversity of religious belief in the world. Just google "Bible divinely inspired" or see the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration or view a local evangelical or fundamentalist church service. Many Christians do believe that while the Bible was written by humans, it was divinely inspired and as such is the literal word of God.

This belief is even more universal in Islam, where there is much less of a history of critical or literary theory reading of the Qur'an. It's a tenet of faith that the Qur'an was "revealed" to Muhammad one revelation at a time. There is a concept of the "Umm al-Kitab" -- the mother book -- a sort of celestial ur-book of wisdom and religious teaching that sets there floating in the ether. The Qur'an is but a portion of the umm al-kitab that God chose to reveal to Muhammad.

Sure. Most are in the Pauline epistles (that's actually why I mentioned Paul in the section of mine you quoted), but they appear directly as quotes from Jesus too. Here are just a few:

Jesus:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:27-28 -- Looking at a woman with lust is the same as adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/matthew/passage/?q=matthew+5:31-32 -- Divorce is as bad as adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32). (You can also get out of these two that adultery is bad)

Paul:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/1-corinthians/passage/?q=1-corinthians+5:1-5 -- Sexual immorality is a big deal. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/romans/passage/?q=romans+1:26-32 -- More on sexual immorality. Those practice such things (one of such things being ... well, read it and see!) are "deserving of death." (Romans 1:26-32)

You can find probably dozens more.

I would argue that that's true of all religions, and everybody. If you can show me an entirely internally consistent religion and a person who follows 100% of those teachings exactly, I would be shocked! Everybody emphasizes whatever part of the scripture they want and ignore other parts. Some conservative Christians glide past the "Do not judge" part and spend a lot of time focusing on sexual immorality! Some liberal Christians glide past the many parts of the new testament that deal with sexual immorality and spend a lot more time with the "do not judge" part! That's just religion for you. Remember, even a religion as seemingly peaceful as Buddhism had adherents who really perfected the modern concept of the suicide bomber.

Personally, I was offended when President Obama attempted to define what true Islam was, and who was a true Muslim and who was a faker. How colonialist of him to attempt to be the arbiter and definer of native religion!

I think you're partially right and partially wrong. The issue is that Islam to a very large degree overlaps with parts of the world that have maintained pre-modern tribal ties to a degree that most of us in the east and west are no longer familiar with. Thus, in Afghanistan, it's not that the fundamentalists aren't united, but that many tribal coalitions have been unified through fundamentalist Islam.

I don't. We could have a nearly infinite discussion about the history of Islam, the history of the Middle East, the rise of the West, and the economic and social morass of much of the Islamic world. We would actually probably end up agreeing about a lot of these things! Militant fundamentalism used to be a part of Christianity, but was stamped out a long time ago. Militant fundamentalism in Islam has yet to be eradicated. If you think the trappings of Caliphate, the revival of the 'Uthman dinar and other potent symbols of early Islam, and the persecution of historical enemies exist in a vacuum, I think you're very wrong.

Have you ever heard a evangelical Christian Bible study or lesson? It's interesting. They will focus to an incredible degree on each word of the verse they are studying. They will talk about the word in the original Greek (or Aramaic, etc.) and its connotations, how it compares to other Biblical accounts, etc. We're talking nitty gritty minutia and some interesting historical analysis. BUT, they also start with the inviolable precondition that the Bible is the literal word of God and divinely inspired. So, forget any line of reasoning like "Maybe Paul said XYZ because of his Jewish heritage and don't forget that the Roman governor had been stamping down on ABC, so if the early Christians wanted to avoid being persecuted, they had to act this way." The correct answer is always "Because God."

Same for ISIS. They are VERY grounded in history, but they are very one dimensional. Belittling (or disregarding the validity of) their beliefs is a huge mistake, however.

I've got to say, I hate the idea that if you join the US you, it's eternal on pain of death. I'm pretty much universally for the devolution of powers and rights to smaller political entity. Just look at countries ranked on the wellness and happiness scales. People have far greater trust in government institutions in smaller countries.

I believe states should be able to secede, regardless of reason. I'm not saying the southern secession followed a good protocol in deciding when to secede, but I think you would be very surprised if you actually read some of the history of how the transition took place. Think about everything that has to switch over. The federal government was far less monstrous 150 years ago, but courthouses, judges, tax officials, military installations, etc, all had a transition to go through. Many were very straightforward. Courthouse employees came to work one day as US employees, the next as Confederates. IMO, once the secession took place, the view of the north was the treason already occurred.

No, completely wrong. Treason can be justified IF YOU WIN, in which case, it's no longer treason.

That's why I was confused! Perhaps you have never actually talked to someone who has a southern accent?

You know how you hate southerners and think southern culture is reprehensible? That's why. I don't support statehouses flying confederate flags, but I sure as crap support retailers, ebay sellers, etc, selling them. I remember being disgusted when I read about how Nazi memorabilia or historical items were banned from resale in Germany--history-avoiding pansies. Well, now here we are. In fact we're worse--you can still buy Nazi gear, but mention of a confederate flag is verboten!

History is written by the victors. We know who the victors in the civil war were. By the time of the civil war war, every one of my ancestors had been in the US for at least one generation. I'm fortunate enough to have the diary one of ancestor who participated in Sherman's march to the sea (he was from Ohio). Completely harrowing stuff. On another side, another ancestor fought for the south at Gettysburg (he was from the high mountains of VA/NC area). He lost six brothers in just two days at Gettysburg and was severely wounded. Interestingly enough, not a single ancestor I have tracked down who fought for the confederacy ever owned slaves (at least that I can tell). Most of them are from the mountains, where slavery was never as big. Slavery was the raison d'etre of the civil war for elite on both sides. That's not why the commoners fight. Commoners never fight for the real reason a war is being fought (or rarely, at least), they fight because they are whipped up into some kind of group-fervor. It's clear that even today the northern/southern culture divide exists and is pretty damn pungent.