"such as sales taxes to finance freeways"
All of them. In fact I can't find a single city that uses sales tax for roads.
"such as sales taxes to finance freeways"
So you live on a farm, but you community needs sticker reminding the their food comes from farmers? That doesn't speak well for the average intelligence of your area. Everyone I know in the city knows their food comes from farmers and ranchers.
I've never been run out of a city for being an Atheist, but I've been run out of several small communities. Literally.
"A modern example would be Santa Fe New Mexico."
Which is a city, last time I checked. So you argument is: City life isn't all that, look at all this cool stuff you can do in the city.
How much night life is there in Chama, NM? Silver City?
count me out... this sort of stuff just makes me want to live on a remote tropical island and spend my days fishing.
Do you also insist on owning your own elevator?
I insist on living and working in locations where I don't need an elevator... a remote tropical island would work well for this.
How do you know he is from Italy?
You don't want to let him get all single family homes made illegal? YOU FASCIST.
You're right about the stadium, but his point is still valid. There are things that are far easier to do with group in Cities.
" I know a lot of people that live in New York and they never go to plays, theater, shows, concerts, or anything. "
Yes, the 12 people you know in New York city don't do any of the stuff.
There are hundreds of museums in New York. Many of them are very busy most of the time.
"For one thing, you could commute for that sort of thing"
that raises the bar and make it less likely to go there.
" you can't be telling me you live in the city to go to music concerts and football games."
err.. why not? I did.
"we didn't live in anything like this density."
" instinctually we have no bond with practically anyone in the city."
sounds like you have issues.
I don't live in a city, but walk across one everyday. I know many people by name. I know my neighbors by name.
My only problem with cities is noise.
Culture, efficiency, knowledge sharing.
Yes, knowledge sharing happen in cities in ways that could never happen on the internet, and visa versa.
"It makes no sense."
It makes a lot of sense, actually.
"Doesn't anyone want to listen to music without having to worry about whether the neighbors will object? Doesn't anyone want a dog or a garden or just some space that is theirs?"
All of which is possible in a city
A city is safer. There have been many studies on this.
What economic issues? saving money? making more money?
What transportation issue? everything is within walking distance.
"just lots of stuff."
The only issue is you have a perception bias and you haven't actually bothered to do even basic research to back your opinion.
SInce the vast majority of in use devices run and Linux variant, I'm not sure of you point.
Chrome OS and Android are different things that have a different focus.
" needs a major overhaul"
what needs top be overhauled?
Publishing apps for Linux is trivial? Or do you mean having a company that can hold you hand?
US courts have ruled that linking to infringing content constitutes contributory infringement. I'm not sure how "direct" the link has to be. Google search links to torrent sites which contain pointers to infringing content, for example, so that's apparently okay.
The DMCA doesn'y say anything at all about search results. It's about hosting allegedly infringing material.
Courts in the US have held that linking directly to infringing content constitutes contributory infringement. Linking to another site isn't infringement just because the other site doesn't want you to link and benefit from their material (Tickemaster v Tickets.com established that), but linking to infringing material on another site does.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor am I a Google spokesperson.)
While that may be true, the shareholders would riot in a damned hurry if the stock price were to tank because Google becomes less relevant.
Which would be relevant only if Larry, Sergey and Eric decided to allow it to be. As long as the three of them stay united, they outvote the rest of the shareholders combined.
These monopolies have billions in cash reserves to run them profitless for a very long time. Like decades.
Aside from the rather questionable assertion that Google is a monopoly, the company's cash reserves are nowhere near that large, or, rather, the company's expenses are much larger than you believe. Last I heard, Google has cash reserves of ~$60B (which, note, aren't actually cash; you don't leave that much capital sitting idle), and annual operational costs of about $40B. How long Google could continue to operate with hugely decreased revenues depends on just how far the revenues declined, and how much economizing the company could do, but I strongly doubt that it would be "decades". If all advertising revenue derived from the search engine disappeared and Google didn't economize at all, it would be bankrupt in maybe three years.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't speak for Google. Everything in this post is derived from public information.)
Yes. Traffic jams happen because interchanges/intersections get saturated.
Actually, the study in question was on freeways, and it didn't necessarily have anything to do with interchanges, which are all rate-controlled in the area. One spot they found regularly jammed was just a rise in the road. The partially obstructed vision was enough to cause a few drivers to slow just a bit, which snowballed and then created a jam which moved backwards from the rise at a fairly constant rate of precession, two or three mph, IIRC. So after the jam moved away from the rise, there was *no* cause for it. It just self-sustained as drivers bunched up when approaching the jam.
There was a