That can't happen without massive (and forcible) population relocation.
For example, the UK has a smaller land area than Oregon, but has ~64 million people, compared to ~4 million for Oregon. France is smaller than Texas, but has 66 million people compared to ~26 million for Texas.
The idea of "just getting rid of cars" will never happen for a similar reason. The U.S. is too big and there are way too many people who live outside the range of any reasonable public transit system that's been devised so far.
Maybe it will happen someday, but I don't think so.
Hmm... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a definition of city that excludes (e.g.) Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).
I haven't finished reading his book, so I can't speak to the context in which he says this.
I guess it depends on what you consider force. If you stop encouraging suburb development, would that be force? It would certainly promote such redistribution, but I wouldn't consider that force. As another HN link noticed, this kind of financial incentive to move into the city has already started happening, but it has been a bottom-up bit.
Oh, yeah, especially after Microsoft stopped shipping Java.
There was also the version issue to worry about. "Pardon me, Mr./Ms Customer/User -- would you mind terribly going and downloading and installing a 20 MB Java update on your 14.4k dialup connection before using this page?"
I always found it a bit hilarious how Sun, after getting Microsoft rather onboard the Java train, albeit with their necessary native extensions, decides to sue them and put an end to it. And promptly kills off Java distribution and adoption by the largest software developer in the world.
Even stranger is how Sun, a hardware/platform company, decided making a popular platform that's hardware and platform independent would help their business. Sometimes I wonder if there was a really well thought-out plan, or people were just doing things.
The "necessity" of those extensions is debatable, and they meant that code wouldn't be portable to Sun's implementation. There was real cause for concern, and there weren't a lot of other options for fixing it.
Sun probably also realized that they weren't about to compete directly with mighty Microsoft on platform lockin of all things, so they played a different game.
It's also the reason why Flash was so prevalent until recently and is still installed in 90-something % of desktop computers: it's faster. Significantly faster, and very specially so in the 90s and early 2000s.
"When I used that email address to make sales enquirers, plenty of sales departments considered that an "opt-in" too."
This seems like more of a gray area to me. Sending sales material to people who have actually sent queries to your sales department doesn't seem nearly as bad as spamming random people (as long as there's a clear, and working, way to turn the sales emails off if you don't want them).
Sending sales material to people who have actually sent queries to your sales department doesn't seem nearly as bad as spamming random people
And it's all not nearly as bad as sending me spam for horse pron websites. You can rationalize it however you want. Still doesn't make any of it cool. Why didn't the person I'm already in an email conversation with ask if I wanted to be on the list? Because they know I'd say no (especially when the conversation turns to the fact their company can't do anything for us). That's what makes it opt-out bullshit.
It's not something that gets me hot under the collar, even at it's worst it was a minor nuisance I dealt with over coffee. But after a year having a published address and 4 years of fallout afterwards, I've heard all the bad rationalizations for spam and they don't stand up. I have a polite and friendly "fuckoff" form letter for people without unsubscribe links. The second time I have to send it I CC the technical contacts in the domain's whois record. When someone gets upset or angry at me for doing so, I know damn well that they know they're lying when they try to justify their spam.
Dude, you're emailing the domain's technical contacts, who likely have no say whatsoever in company sales policy. That sounds pretty hot under the collar to me.
Eh, I never thought of it as that big of a deal, just another task at work where something needs to happen or stop happening, and I only have a handful of routes to take. If asking the sales contact to stop didn't work, it turns out that most people don't make public the contact info for the sales managers' boss.
I'm not going to play cooperate politics somewhere I A) don't work B) have no ability to contact anybody with control over any policy and C) even if they were publicly accessible, don't understand why spamming isn't cool. It easy enough just to contact the dudes running the infrastructure used to spam me. And because they're techies and not salesmen they're actually nice people and already know this kind of behavior is unacceptable emailing. They might not have control over the policy, but they have something I don't: access to the people who can fix the policy or at least get me off the list.
It was actually the nice alternative to calling my netadmin. He was a very good admin, the emails would disappear from my inbox instantaneously, but when he checked the spam filter and marked true positives, his scripts made people wind up on email blackhole lists.
I mean, from my POV as a consumer a Kindle book that I can carry around with me is much closer to a physical book than one of your flip books (which appear to require an active internet connection in order to work?)