The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:36 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Talya wrote:
On a more serious note, I approve of "Urban Sprawl." Large population centers may be useful, but nature never intended for humans to live that way. I have nothing against people spreading to every nook, cranny and corner of the earth that they find comfortable in.

We rule this planet. Let's not be held hostage by those who think we shouldn't use it, so long as we do so in a way that doesn't use it all up.We need to live here for quite a while yet.


Anti-sprawl peeps don't advocate land going unused. It's how it's used. I don't think you quite understand what sprawl is. Sprawl is huge housing development, then over here, a highway with a bunch of businesses along it, then a farm further out, etc. The anti-sprawl people want everything mixed together. So instead of 2,000 1/4 acre lots, you'd have 2,000 1/10th acre lots, a park, and a town centre with businesses and entertainment. the point is with sprawl you have to get in your car to go anywhere - that's what folks want to avoid.


This. Let me give you an example. Dallas has to be one of the most spread out sprawls I've ever seen. I worked right in downtown, and commuted 28 miles one way to get to work. In that drive, I went by at least 2 farms with cattle, interspersed between several developments. And I didn't even live as far out as some folks did. Dallas/Ft. Worth are "sister" cities, much like Minneapolis/St. Paul yet they were 50 miles apart from each other.

In short, there really is no reason why Dallas had to be that spread out. You could have had really nice residential neighborhoods with yards and sidewalks, etc. in a fraction of the space.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:11 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
An acre is 66 x 660 or 43,560 square feet. It's smaller than a football field (U.S.).

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:27 pm 
Offline
Lean, Mean, Googling Machine
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Admittedly it makes more sense in rods and chains.

1 mile = 80 chains
1 chain = 100 links
25 links = 1 rod (4 rods to the chain)
1 acre = 10 square chains
1 square mile = 80 x 80 chains
= 6400 square chains
= 640 acres

The roman mile was equivalent to 1000 paces. Latin mille = 1,000 -- hence the milli- SI prefix = 1/1000th, etc. A pace was 5 feet (Romans were tall, yo). So, 1 roman mile = 5000 roman feet.

For whatever reason, having 5000 feet to the mile - and thus 62.5 feet to the chain - wasn't "good enough", so the conversion was tweaked to 66 feet (or 22 yards) to the chain. This gives us our bizarre definition of 5,280 feet to the mile, and 43,560 feet to the acre.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Stathol wrote:
Admittedly it makes more sense in rods and chains.

1 mile = 80 chains
1 chain = 100 links
25 links = 1 rod (4 rods to the chain)
1 acre = 10 square chains
1 square mile = 80 x 80 chains
= 6400 square chains
= 640 acres

The roman mile was equivalent to 1000 paces. Latin mille = 1,000 -- hence the milli- SI prefix = 1/1000th, etc. A pace was 5 feet (Romans were tall, yo). So, 1 roman mile = 5000 roman feet.

For whatever reason, having 5000 feet to the mile - and thus 62.5 feet to the chain - wasn't "good enough", so the conversion was tweaked to 66 feet (or 22 yards) to the chain. This gives us our bizarre definition of 5,280 feet to the mile, and 43,560 feet to the acre.


Ya, know, I never knew this. Thank's, Stathol.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 am
Posts: 849
Incidentally, sprawl has little to do with my area. It's been like this for over a century. We've actually gone backwards here in that time, I believe. There used to be a school and a bar in town. The school was closed a long time ago, and the school in the next town over closed about 15 years ago. I think the bar closed up shop a bit before that time.

If recent influx in immigration didn't bring a (relative) ton of violent crime to the local city here, I suspect we'd see population in all these outlying towns dwindle over time. Even if that were the case, it doesn't affect what the Department of Transportation would like to see done at a local level here in the meantime.

I am generally all for bicycling and walking. I would walk to class almost whenever possible (barring cold winter days! and even then I only drove when I could park nearer for free :p) and I would be thoroughly and extremely pleased to forever rid myself of the hassle and expense of car buying and maintenance. But these ideals simply do not work, period, in what I assume is a very vast percentage of this country.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:28 pm 
Offline
The Game Master.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:01 pm
Posts: 3729
Aizle wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Talya wrote:
On a more serious note, I approve of "Urban Sprawl." Large population centers may be useful, but nature never intended for humans to live that way. I have nothing against people spreading to every nook, cranny and corner of the earth that they find comfortable in.

We rule this planet. Let's not be held hostage by those who think we shouldn't use it, so long as we do so in a way that doesn't use it all up.We need to live here for quite a while yet.


Anti-sprawl peeps don't advocate land going unused. It's how it's used. I don't think you quite understand what sprawl is. Sprawl is huge housing development, then over here, a highway with a bunch of businesses along it, then a farm further out, etc. The anti-sprawl people want everything mixed together. So instead of 2,000 1/4 acre lots, you'd have 2,000 1/10th acre lots, a park, and a town centre with businesses and entertainment. the point is with sprawl you have to get in your car to go anywhere - that's what folks want to avoid.


This. Let me give you an example. Dallas has to be one of the most spread out sprawls I've ever seen. I worked right in downtown, and commuted 28 miles one way to get to work. In that drive, I went by at least 2 farms with cattle, interspersed between several developments. And I didn't even live as far out as some folks did. Dallas/Ft. Worth are "sister" cities, much like Minneapolis/St. Paul yet they were 50 miles apart from each other.

In short, there really is no reason why Dallas had to be that spread out. You could have had really nice residential neighborhoods with yards and sidewalks, etc. in a fraction of the space.


In other words, you contributed to the problem by living 28 miles away from your worksite, and yet want to advocate that that practice/habit/trend be either disallowed or discouraged?

There's a word for that.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:47 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
What's the word for that? And more important still, is there an app for that?

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:28 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
Stathol wrote:
Admittedly it makes more sense in rods and chains.

1 mile = 80 chains
1 chain = 100 links
25 links = 1 rod (4 rods to the chain)
1 acre = 10 square chains
1 square mile = 80 x 80 chains
= 6400 square chains
= 640 acres

The roman mile was equivalent to 1000 paces. Latin mille = 1,000 -- hence the milli- SI prefix = 1/1000th, etc. A pace was 5 feet (Romans were tall, yo). So, 1 roman mile = 5000 roman feet.

For whatever reason, having 5000 feet to the mile - and thus 62.5 feet to the chain - wasn't "good enough", so the conversion was tweaked to 66 feet (or 22 yards) to the chain. This gives us our bizarre definition of 5,280 feet to the mile, and 43,560 feet to the acre.


Ya, know, I never knew this. Thank's, Stathol.


Nautical miles are no better at 6076 feet rather than an even 6000. Evidently they correspond to one minute of arc of latitude.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group