I mean, I have given up on asking you to do the
right thing and stay topical.
https://wattsunotpwiththat.com/2026
?Most Americans have never heard of the International Organization for >Standardization.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
https://wattsunotpwiththat.com/2026
?Most Americans have never heard of the International Organization for >>Standardization.
More nonsense. While the site you cite is clearly science
fiction, it really don't have anything to do with this newsgroup.
Good grief. Attacking ISO, what's up with that?
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
https://wattsunotpwiththat.com/2026
ƒMost Americans have never heard of the International Organization for >>>Standardization.
More nonsense. While the site you cite is clearly science
fiction, it really don't have anything to do with this newsgroup.
Good grief. Attacking ISO, what's up with that?
Well, I'm not happy about the standardized tea preparation for one thing. If you make it according to their reference, it's oversteeped. Also they should have standardized the XLR connector pinout years earlier and by the time they did there were two competing pinouts so we're stuck with a standard that isn't
actually standard. And don't get me started on microphone sensitivity and noise specifications.
--scott
Good grief. Attacking ISO, what's up with that?
and with how at least part of their
standards aren't public and are paywalled.
I think UIC may suffer from the same documentation paywall
problem.
On 2026-04-11, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I think UIC may suffer from the same documentation paywall
problem.
I agree that standards should be free, but there is a problem:
Creating and publishing standards costs money. Standards organizations >typically aren't governmental bodies, so they aren't tax-funded,
so how are they going to pay for it?
On 2026-04-11, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I mean, I have given up on asking you to do the
right thing and stay topical.
Ignoring it is even easier than staying
topical, and yet here you are admitting
ignoring it is too hard for you.
So now the ISO has drunk the Global Warming XXXXX XXXX Climate Change
XXXXX XXXX Climate Disruption Koolaid. Lovely, just lovely.
?The Carbon Bureaucracy Nobody Voted For?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/04/10/the-carbon-bureaucracy-nobody- voted-for/
?Most Americans have never heard of the International Organization for Standardization.?
?That is exactly how its architects prefer it. While Washington debates energy policy in public, a quieter project is underway in Geneva, one
that could reshape how American companies produce energy and what it
costs them to do it, without a single public vote being cast, a single hearing being held, or a single elected official being consulted.?
?Last September, the ISO announced a strategic partnership with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to ?harmonize? global emissions accounting standards. The GHG Protocol was developed by the World Resources
Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
two organizations funded by the full cast of progressive philanthropy, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the MacArthur Foundation, and
several European governments, to be the world?s dominant framework for corporate carbon reporting.?
So now the ISO has drunk the Global Warming XXXXX XXXX Climate Change
XXXXX XXXX Climate Disruption Koolaid.ÿ Lovely, just lovely.
Lynn
On 4/10/26 19:03, Lynn McGuire wrote:
?The Carbon Bureaucracy Nobody Voted For?
Lynn
Well in California anyone who visited Los Angeles in the 1950s
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> writes:
On 4/10/26 19:03, Lynn McGuire wrote:
?The Carbon Bureaucracy Nobody Voted For?
<snip nonsense>
Lynn
Well in California anyone who visited Los Angeles in the 1950s
Up through the late 1980s, in fact. Watch television shows from the
1970's and you'll seldom see blue skies, as almost everything was
filmed in the LA basin in those days. It's particularly striking
in the 70's drama _Emergency_ which filmed extensively outdoors
over the entire basin.
I recall a saturday in 1984 during a stage II smog alert when we had a softball game in Altadena. The batters would have to stop on the
way to first base to catch their breath after hitting the ball. We
called the game after the first half of the first inning.
Nasty stuff. By 2000, the air was far cleaner thanks to smog
controls, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and other
advancements in technology.
Word from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
Who can be surprised that pollution rises with population. But I have
not visited LA for over 50 years. I went to an SF convention on Labor Day >Weekend and everyone who could leave LA had done so. The air was much
better on those days than my experience in the 1950s and 1960s.
Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2026-04-11, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I think UIC may suffer from the same documentation paywall
problem.
I agree that standards should be free, but there is a problem:
Creating and publishing standards costs money. Standards organizations >>typically aren't governmental bodies, so they aren't tax-funded,
so how are they going to pay for it?
There has been a lot of discussion about this in the Audio Engineering Society over the past few decades. Because if you charge for standards documents then people are much less likely to use the standards and
that makes the documents less valuable.
There are industries where you can mandate standards, like the ICAO
aviation interoperability standards, and you can get people to pay for
them.
But in industries like audio, that's less likely to happen. And then you
get to the internet, where RFC-established protocols are slowly being replaced with proprietary (often Microsoft and Cisco) protocols that sometimes aren't even documented.
--scott
I recall a saturday in 1984 during a stage II smog alert when we had a >softball game in Altadena. The batters would have to stop on the
way to first base to catch their breath after hitting the ball. We
called the game after the first half of the first inning.
Nasty stuff. By 2000, the air was far cleaner thanks to smog
controls, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and other
advancements in technology.
Word from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-11, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I mean, I have given up on asking you to do the
right thing and stay topical.
Ignoring it is even easier than staying
topical, and yet here you are admitting
ignoring it is too hard for you.
No, I don't like them filling up the view. I
don't respond in a meaningful way. I really
just wondering if anyone has a suggestion, and
trying one more time to get Lynn to stop doing
this. But I can see how you'd think that.
So you won't see me in any of the other political
threads. I have been creating special rules for
some of the more "popular" ones but that's a
pain to do over and over.
Yes, you can only do so much with so many people. Why would anyone ever
move to LA?
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
I recall a saturday in 1984 during a stage II smog alert when we had a >>softball game in Altadena. The batters would have to stop on the
way to first base to catch their breath after hitting the ball. We
called the game after the first half of the first inning.
Nasty stuff. By 2000, the air was far cleaner thanks to smog
controls, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and other
advancements in technology.
And that seemed like an SF story back in the day. The increases in standards set car manufacturers to doing all kinds of crazy things to reduce emissions by running the engines leaner... and most of those things didn't work in practice, they all made for worse efficiency and performance and some of them wound up reducing particulates at the expense of NOX.
This got engine designers to finally get out of their comfort zone and
start looking at fuel injection... and now everything on the road is using fuel injection with closed-loop control of mixture. The improvement in
fuel mileage and emissions in actual practice (rather than an EPA test track) has been staggering.
It took a long time for American designers to make the paradigm shift, but
it was a dramatic change. The 8048 microcontrollers made it cheaper to implement than analogue electronic systems, but the analogue electronic systems did perfectly well. The big change was in the heads of car people.
Word from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
Yes, you can only do so much with so many people. Why would anyone ever
move to LA?
--scott
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
everWord from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
Yes, you can only do so much with so many people. Why would anyone
move to LA?
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public
transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate,
seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
I mean, you could run buses, but these are more appropriate for less
dense areas, or to feed higher-capacity public transit when serving
movements to/from a congested area. They're still much better than
personal vehicles, of course.
Why not just manually move onto another post when
the current starts to fail hopes/expectations?
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public
transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate,
seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
oldernow wrote:
There are many here that haven't posted any
topical stuff in a long time. They don't reply
to threads on SF works, unless it goes off-topic,
nor do they post about what they are reading.
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
I recall a saturday in 1984 during a stage II smog alert when we had a >>>softball game in Altadena. The batters would have to stop on the
way to first base to catch their breath after hitting the ball. We
called the game after the first half of the first inning.
Nasty stuff. By 2000, the air was far cleaner thanks to smog
controls, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and other
advancements in technology.
And that seemed like an SF story back in the day. The increases in standards
set car manufacturers to doing all kinds of crazy things to reduce emissions >> by running the engines leaner... and most of those things didn't work in
practice, they all made for worse efficiency and performance and some of them
wound up reducing particulates at the expense of NOX.
This got engine designers to finally get out of their comfort zone and
start looking at fuel injection... and now everything on the road is using >> fuel injection with closed-loop control of mixture. The improvement in
fuel mileage and emissions in actual practice (rather than an EPA test track)
has been staggering.
It took a long time for American designers to make the paradigm shift, but >> it was a dramatic change. The 8048 microcontrollers made it cheaper to
implement than analogue electronic systems, but the analogue electronic
systems did perfectly well. The big change was in the heads of car people. >>
Word from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
Yes, you can only do so much with so many people. Why would anyone ever
move to LA?
--scott
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public
transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate,
seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
I mean, you could run buses, but these are more appropriate for less
dense areas, or to feed higher-capacity public transit when serving
movements to/from a congested area. They're still much better than
personal vehicles, of course.
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
In 1984, it was all cars, busses, smog and freeways.
Today, there are some light rail lines serving large parts
of the basin and adjacent valleys. https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules-2/
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
I recall a saturday in 1984 during a stage II smog alert when we had a >>>> softball game in Altadena. The batters would have to stop on the
way to first base to catch their breath after hitting the ball. We
called the game after the first half of the first inning.
Nasty stuff. By 2000, the air was far cleaner thanks to smog
controls, energy efficiency, CAFE standards, and other
advancements in technology.
And that seemed like an SF story back in the day. The increases in standards
set car manufacturers to doing all kinds of crazy things to reduce emissions
by running the engines leaner... and most of those things didn't work in >>> practice, they all made for worse efficiency and performance and some of them
wound up reducing particulates at the expense of NOX.
This got engine designers to finally get out of their comfort zone and
start looking at fuel injection... and now everything on the road is using >>> fuel injection with closed-loop control of mixture. The improvement in
fuel mileage and emissions in actual practice (rather than an EPA test track)
has been staggering.
It took a long time for American designers to make the paradigm shift, but >>> it was a dramatic change. The 8048 microcontrollers made it cheaper to
implement than analogue electronic systems, but the analogue electronic
systems did perfectly well. The big change was in the heads of car people. >>>
Word from current residents is that air quality has started
to regress again (the population has almost doubled since 1984).
Yes, you can only do so much with so many people. Why would anyone ever >>> move to LA?
--scott
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public
transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate,
seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes
private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
In 1984, it was all cars, busses, smog and freeways.
Today, there are some light rail lines serving large parts
of the basin and adjacent valleys. https://www.metro.net/riding/schedules-2/
I mean, you could run buses, but these are more appropriate for less
dense areas, or to feed higher-capacity public transit when serving
movements to/from a congested area. They're still much better than
personal vehicles, of course.
I used the busses in the 80s to get to downtown LA (jury duty)
a few times. Slow, which naturally arises from the frequent
stops for boarding.
I left before the light rail opened.
I will say that during the two weeks of the 1984 olympics the
traffic was unusually light making easy to get around.
I don't even remember how I wound up here. I've
no idea the newsgroup's purpose. I haven't read a
SF book in eons (exaggeration, but the word seems
"science fiction relevant"). I must have followed
some cross-post, and too much has happened since,
so the details are gone.
The RASFW FAQs are here:
http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
The first part of the intro to that is:
0. Introduction
rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to
discussions of written SF. It is a high-volume
newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings,
thereby making it more useful and enjoyable
to everyone.
"SF" as used here means "speculative fiction"
and includes science fiction, fantasy, horror
(a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc.
The "high volume" is questionable these days.
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
The "high volume" is questionable these days.
Well, if you miss it, I hope it turns around
for you.
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public >>transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate, >>seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >>private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
It's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap
air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible.
You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the
other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
The good news is that many places outside of LA proper are much better in that regard. Public transit in Long Beach is actually pretty good by American standards and walking is quite reasonable. Anaheim isn't as
good but it's way better than LA proper.
The "high volume" is questionable these days.
oldernow wrote:
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
It's a term used to avoid arguments about whether
a work is science fiction or fantasy. It just
includes both and a few other things.
The "high volume" is questionable these days.
Well, if you miss it, I hope it turns around
for you.
I doubt there will be any significant increase
in participation. I wish those that are here
would post more topical stuff. I have checked
out the SF reddit.
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate, seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
It's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible. You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area?
Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and
laws?
(Either way, it's terrible design, for sure. Walkability means a lot, be
it for *walking* in itself or to use public transit.)
The good news is that many places outside of LA proper are much better in that regard. Public transit in Long Beach is actually pretty good by American standards and walking is quite reasonable. Anaheim isn't as
good but it's way better than LA proper.
Good to hear!
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and
laws?
(Either way, it's terrible design, for sure. Walkability means a lot, be
it for *walking* in itself or to use public transit.)
The good news is that many places outside of LA proper are much better in
that regard. Public transit in Long Beach is actually pretty good by
American standards and walking is quite reasonable. Anaheim isn't as
good but it's way better than LA proper.
Good to hear!
oldernow wrote:
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
It's a term used to avoid arguments about whether a work is science
fiction or fantasy. It just includes both and a few other things.
In article <10ri4lo$34a52$1@dont-email.me>,
Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
oldernow wrote:
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
It's a term used to avoid arguments about whether
a work is science fiction or fantasy. It just
includes both and a few other things.
Heinlein used it in the 1940s to refer to SF
that he would like to sell to the slicks for
more money than the pulps could offer.
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public >>>transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate, >>>seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >>>private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
It's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap
air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more
before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in
traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big
freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible.
You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the
other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and
laws?
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public >>>>transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate, >>>>seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >>>>private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's >>>>apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution? >>>It's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap >>> air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more >>> before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in
traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big
freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible. >>> You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the
other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>laws?
Los Angeles (the region) encompasses 510 square miles surrounded
on three sides by mountains, and the fourth by the ocean.
There are many controlled access roadways connecting the various
communities.
Interstate Highways
5 (Golden State/Santa Ana)
10 (Santa Monica/San Bernardino)
105 (Century) (the newest major freeway)
110 (Harbor) (the portion between LA and Pasadena is the oldest)57 (Orange)
210 (Foothill)
405 (San Diego)
605 (San Gabriel River)
710 (Long Beach).
State highways:
1 (PCH)
60 (Pomona)
70 (Corona)
91 (Artesia)
101 (Hollywood/Ventura)
Toll Highways in Orange County:
73
133
241
261
On 2026-04-12, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The RASFW FAQs are here:
http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
The first part of the intro to that is:
0. Introduction
rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to
discussions of written SF. It is a high-volume
newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings,
thereby making it more useful and enjoyable
to everyone.
"SF" as used here means "speculative fiction"
and includes science fiction, fantasy, horror
(a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc.
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
On 2026-04-13, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
oldernow wrote:
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
It's a term used to avoid arguments about whether
a work is science fiction or fantasy. It just
includes both and a few other things.
Ah, yes... the human obsession with labels that
become realities via the magic word 'is'!
The "high volume" is questionable these days.
Well, if you miss it, I hope it turns around
for you.
I doubt there will be any significant increase
in participation. I wish those that are here
would post more topical stuff. I have checked
out the SF reddit.
Have ye theories on the decrease? Has SF become
less of a thing? Is USENET going to hell again?
Are there newer, improved places to discuss and
you're late to that party? Has it become more
difficult to pretend (er.. *speculate*) that
pretending might go somewhere lastingly
worthwhile?
I went through a version of that last example
with the internet in general. All of a sudden
I felt like I hit a critical mass of evidence
that I'd imagined the internet's seeming
appeal/charm/possibility all along -
while of course pretending there was
something "real" to it.
It happens in other areas too, e.g. relationships.
It's as though a last/final ember of faith in
hope-fueled modeling of what it "is" goes out
and, poof, that's that.
Thank <deity> that's not happened with typing,
or I've no idea what I'd do with the regularly
scheduled logjam of verbiage accumulation!
On 4/12/2026 8:33 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-12, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The RASFW FAQs are here:
http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
The first part of the intro to that is:
0. Introduction
rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to
discussions of written SF. It is a high-volume
newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings,
thereby making it more useful and enjoyable
to everyone.
"SF" as used here means "speculative fiction"
and includes science fiction, fantasy, horror
(a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc.
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
I'm certain I've heard the term going back to the
1970s.
Google ngram confirms this, with the first
appearances in the early 60s, and an 8-fold
increase in usage since 2000.
On 2026-04-13, Cryptoengineer<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/12/2026 8:33 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-12, Default User<defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The RASFW FAQs are here:
http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm
The first part of the intro to that is:
0. Introduction
rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to
discussions of written SF. It is a high-volume
newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings,
thereby making it more useful and enjoyable
to everyone.
"SF" as used here means "speculative fiction"
and includes science fiction, fantasy, horror
(a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc.
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
I'm certain I've heard the term going back to the
1970s.
Google ngram confirms this, with the first
appearances in the early 60s, and an 8-fold
increase in usage since 2000.
Now if only someone could tell me whether
there's a speculative fiction bureaucracy
nobody voted for.... <coughs>
I've been in online fandom since the late 70s,
and usenet from the early 80s. The peak was
probably the early 2000s.
On Apr 13, 2026, oldernow wrote
(in article<slrn10tqi92.ikm.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>):
Now if only someone could tell me whether
there's a speculative fiction bureaucracy
nobody voted for.... <coughs>
sure there is. they?re running various cons.
On 2026-04-13, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I doubt there will be any significant increase
in participation. I wish those that are here
would post more topical stuff. I have checked
out the SF reddit.
Have ye theories on the decrease? Has SF become
less of a thing? Is USENET going to hell again?
Are there newer, improved places to discuss and
you're late to that party? Has it become more
difficult to pretend (er.. speculate) that
pretending might go somewhere lastingly
worthwhile?
oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I doubt there will be any significant increase
in participation. I wish those that are here
would post more topical stuff. I have checked
out the SF reddit.
Have ye theories on the decrease? Has SF become
less of a thing? Is USENET going to hell again?
Are there newer, improved places to discuss and
you're late to that party? Has it become more
difficult to pretend (er.. speculate) that
pretending might go somewhere lastingly
worthwhile?
For the most part, it's the general decline of usenet. Many people just
don't even know about it. Some attorneys general made a point of going
after usenet because of some of the binaries groups, so ISPs just
dropped their servers altogether rather than deal with it.
The destruction of Google Groups, in spite of the hatred some had for
the platform, cut off many who then didn't bother trying to find an alternative.
Not helping the problem here is what I said before, the remaining participants don't show much interest in the topic of the newsgroup. A
new person looking for an SF group sees mostly threads on politics.
Without a lot of new blood as in the old days, things trend toward the moribund. For all his sins in starting off-topic threads, at least Lynn
does post some topical messages.
oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I doubt there will be any significant increase
in participation. I wish those that are here
would post more topical stuff. I have checked
out the SF reddit.
Have ye theories on the decrease? Has SF become
less of a thing? Is USENET going to hell again?
Are there newer, improved places to discuss and
you're late to that party? Has it become more
difficult to pretend (er.. speculate) that
pretending might go somewhere lastingly
worthwhile?
For the most part, it's the general decline
of usenet. Many people just don't even know
about it. Some attorneys general made a point
of going after usenet because of some of the
binaries groups, so ISPs just dropped their
servers altogether rather than deal with it.
The destruction of Google Groups, in spite of
the hatred some had for the platform, cut off
many who then didn't bother trying to find
an alternative.
Not helping the problem here is what I said
before, the remaining participants don't show
much interest in the topic of the newsgroup. A
new person looking for an SF group sees mostly
threads on politics. Without a lot of new blood
as in the old days, things trend toward the
moribund. For all his sins in starting off-topic
threads, at least Lynn does post some topical
messages.
(I hope the new subject triggers at least some giggles. I was going towith it.
mark this [Meta] but worded this way it remains topical :-P)
On 2026-04-13, Default User wrote:
oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The destruction of Google Groups, in spite of the hatred some had for
the platform, cut off many who then didn't bother trying to find an
alternative.
Google Groups, in its final years, did a lot of harm, enabling a massive >amount of spam that required either discarding everything injected by
Google or more laborious uses of spam filtering to get rid of these
messages while allowing legitimate articles from Google to pass through.
Users of some servers may have not noticed the dimension of that spam
wave, because of such efforts to filter it. But this was possibly even >hundreds of articles a day in some groups, all posted via Google Groups.
And this is likely the why of it having been discontinued - Google is >apparently so incompetent at filtering such abuse that they decided to
stop the peering instead. Doesn't bode well for their web search
business, I guess?
On 2026-04-13, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been in online fandom since the late 70s,
and usenet from the early 80s. The peak was
probably the early 2000s.
The late 70s? What were the online fandom
venues/mechanisms in the late 70s?
Unfortunately (as though it really matters..)
I didn't keep track of the chronology of my
involvement with any rigor. I was first
visiting "local BBSes" roughly 1987,
then General Electric's "GEnie",
then the internet proper - which
was far and away mostly USENET.
It was all certainly before
1990.
On 2026-04-13, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2026, oldernow wrote
(in article<slrn10tqi92.ikm.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>):
Now if only someone could tell me whether
there's a speculative fiction bureaucracy
nobody voted for.... <coughs>
sure there is. they?re running various cons.
Are we defenseless? I mean, at first I thought
maybe putting "[OT]" at the beginning of Subject:
lines might create a shield of protection.
But then it hit me doing that probably
accomplishes absolutely nothing but
make one look silly - if not look
as though begging for cons!
I believe the "speculative fiction bureaucracy"
related to 'cons' is organizations like WSFS,
rather than 'con games'.
On 2026-04-13, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been in online fandom since the late 70s,
and usenet from the early 80s. The peak was
probably the early 2000s.
The late 70s? What were the online fandom
venues/mechanisms in the late 70s?
On 4/13/2026 4:10 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been in online fandom since the late 70s,
and usenet from the early 80s. The peak was
probably the early 2000s.
The late 70s? What were the online fandom
venues/mechanisms in the late 70s?
Unfortunately (as though it really matters..)
I didn't keep track of the chronology of my
involvement with any rigor. I was first
visiting "local BBSes" roughly 1987,
then General Electric's "GEnie",
then the internet proper - which
was far and away mostly USENET.
It was all certainly before
1990.
The main one was SF-LOVERS (aka 'SFL'), the first
large scale mailing list. Created by
Roger Duffy at MIT in 1975, it initially
was just a mail reflector. By 1980 it
developed into the 'SF-Lovers Digest',
which bundled up letters into a single
daily post. I subscribed in late 1978.
After usenet became widespread in the
early 80s, it spawned rec.arts.sf-lovers,
the ancestor of the rec.arts.sf.* groups.
When I say it was the 'first large scale
mailing list', I mean that literally. At
that time, we're talking about the ARPANet,
and all traffic was *supposed* to be in
advancing ARPA projects, and access was
only at universities doing defense work,
government agencies, and military contractors.
I was working for Columbia University at the
time.
Off-topic use was officially banned,
but absolutely existed, with dozens of
special interest mailing lists. SF-LOVERS
was by far the largest, and at cons we
sought to be very down-low on its existence.
At one panel on 'Computers in Fandom', we
decided that if an audience member mentioned
SFL, the panel would walk out rather than
answer. (It didn't happen).
Not too far into the 80s, DARPA realized that
something interesting was going on, and gave
the green light for SFL to exist, as a
research project in managing large email lists.
At cons, on the party board, there'd be a listing that
was simply an '@', with a time and room number.
That would be the SF-Lover's party. You had
to have an email address to get in. Usually,
someone would bring in a terminal and modem
of some kind (I once brought a complete
VAXStation II), and hardware hackers would
rewire the (hardwired, not modular plugged)
hotel phone so we could get online and post
a report from the party, live.
I believe the "speculative fiction bureaucracy"
related to 'cons' is organizations like WSFS,
rather than 'con games'.
The net was a very different place before the
Eternal September occurred.
On 2026-04-14, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/13/2026 4:10 PM, oldernow wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been in online fandom since the late 70s,
and usenet from the early 80s. The peak was
probably the early 2000s.
The late 70s? What were the online fandom
venues/mechanisms in the late 70s?
Unfortunately (as though it really matters..)
I didn't keep track of the chronology of my
involvement with any rigor. I was first
visiting "local BBSes" roughly 1987,
then General Electric's "GEnie",
then the internet proper - which
was far and away mostly USENET.
It was all certainly before
1990.
The main one was SF-LOVERS (aka 'SFL'), the first
large scale mailing list. Created by
Roger Duffy at MIT in 1975, it initially
was just a mail reflector. By 1980 it
developed into the 'SF-Lovers Digest',
which bundled up letters into a single
daily post. I subscribed in late 1978.
After usenet became widespread in the
early 80s, it spawned rec.arts.sf-lovers,
the ancestor of the rec.arts.sf.* groups.
When I say it was the 'first large scale
mailing list', I mean that literally. At
that time, we're talking about the ARPANet,
and all traffic was *supposed* to be in
advancing ARPA projects, and access was
only at universities doing defense work,
government agencies, and military contractors.
I was working for Columbia University at the
time.
Off-topic use was officially banned,
but absolutely existed, with dozens of
special interest mailing lists. SF-LOVERS
was by far the largest, and at cons we
sought to be very down-low on its existence.
At one panel on 'Computers in Fandom', we
decided that if an audience member mentioned
SFL, the panel would walk out rather than
answer. (It didn't happen).
Not too far into the 80s, DARPA realized that
something interesting was going on, and gave
the green light for SFL to exist, as a
research project in managing large email lists.
At cons, on the party board, there'd be a listing that
was simply an '@', with a time and room number.
That would be the SF-Lover's party. You had
to have an email address to get in. Usually,
someone would bring in a terminal and modem
of some kind (I once brought a complete
VAXStation II), and hardware hackers would
rewire the (hardwired, not modular plugged)
hotel phone so we could get online and post
a report from the party, live.
I'm still not quite clear re: "cons". At first
sight of it I honestly thought "What does lisp
have to do with this?"... a few usages later it
seemed to be related to consoles... or maybe
conferences..? A couple posts have used it
as though it needed no explanation, and yet I
remain lost.
'cons' is short for 'conventions', ie, Science
Fiction Conventions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction_convention
So... let's say that's possible. Where would
you recommend I begin? Dare I ask if there's
a book and/or author most representative of
the essence of SF? Or might answering that
possibly tempt RASW regulars to engage in
textural bloodletting? It's amazing how
quickly people lose their minds online
anymore....
On 14/04/2026 10:28, oldernow wrote:
So... let's say that's possible. Where would
you recommend I begin? Dare I ask if there's
a book and/or author most representative of
the essence of SF? Or might answering that
possibly tempt RASW regulars to engage in
textural bloodletting? It's amazing how
quickly people lose their minds online
anymore....
The range of SF is from absolute crap to sublime
literature and there are fans of both here.
I would recommend that you begin when about 12
or 13 years of age but suspect this advice might
be too late.
Maybe you could look up Hugo Awards on Wikipedia?
Maybe you could supply a short list of fiction
you have most enjoyed and that might prompt some
comparable SF responses?
On 2026-04-13, James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
In article <10ri4lo$34a52$1@dont-email.me>,
Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> wrote:
oldernow wrote:
It's going to sound ridiculous in these parts,
but I'm not not remembering encountering the term
"speculative fiction" before. That doesn't mean
I haven't, but gosh how memory has been racing
for the door, of late.
It's a term used to avoid arguments about whether
a work is science fiction or fantasy. It just
includes both and a few other things.
Heinlein used it in the 1940s to refer to SF
that he would like to sell to the slicks for
more money than the pulps could offer.
Well, doggone! And here I had such high hopes
there was a bit more than lucre at the root!
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in
traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big
freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible.
You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the
other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and
laws?
(Either way, it's terrible design, for sure. Walkability means a lot, be
it for *walking* in itself or to use public transit.)
Vernor Vinge wrote "A fire on the deep", the best usenet inspired
novel. I've read it three times, and it has an equally or perhaps even
more admired sequel, "A deepness in the Sky".
Somewhere online you can find an article by SF
writer Philip K Dick on how to cook dog food,
because that was all he, a "successful" writer
at the time, could afford.
Put it this way, three cents a word for a ten
thousand word story is three hundred dollars.
How many ten thousand word stories can you
sell in a year? Particularly when only three
SF magazines paid three cents. Others paid two
or even less. Eight cents a word (or more) from
the slicks could make a big difference to your
diet. And might bring your work to the attention
of people who published actual novels.
About this time (1950) the very prolific
Ray Bradbury was selling one story a week
(admittedly shorter) and doing fairly well,
selling in all genres except possibly westerns.
He was also trying to sell stories to the slicks,
but was rejected.
So he took three of his rejected stories,
submitted them under a pen name, and they were
all accepted, for much more money than he made
in a normal year.
As for where to start in SF (whatever those
two letters stand for), it depends on what
you like. Hal Clement is the king of hard SF,
keeping within the boundaries of science -
"Mission of Gravity" is is most liked book.
Other hard SF writers who on occasion bend
the rules (allowing faster than light travel,
for example) would include Arthur Clarke, Poul
Anderson, Asimov and Heinlein. Start with their
early or mid-career books.
Vernor Vinge wrote "A fire on the deep", the
best usnet inspired novel. I've read it three
times, and it has an equally or perhaps even
more admired sequel, "A deepness in the Sky".
A more modern hard SF writer is Alastair
Reynolds, regularly discussed here. "Revelation
Space" would seem to me to be the best place
to start.
Then there's the subgenre of Space Opera.
Which can be hard SF, or have hard SF elements
(Much of Reynold's work can be so described).
Or not. Walter Jon Williams Praxis series is
military space opera, at least on the surface,
and I found it a very good read. First novel,
oddly enough is called "The Praxis".
The late Iain M Banks wrote, arguably, Space
Opera with a literary bent, a good place to
start would be his third book, "The Player of
Games". But then that may just be me with my game
obsession. The earlier "Use of Weapons" is very
good but written in a nonlinear style some may
not like. I may reread that this week. Or both
of them.
Then there's disaster SF. One bad thing shakes
up our system and the writer describes the
consequences. For a while this was John Wyndham's
entire output (Day of the triffids), and Niven
and Pournelle did some of this as well, but for
me the best is Aldiss's "Greybeard", an elegiac
novel of human underpopulation".
So much more to describe. Literary SF, surreal SF
(Ballard), the British New Wave, First contact
SF, pre-pulp SF, "Golden age" SF, Military
SF, psychological SF, reality-questioning SF,
political SF, fantasy adjacent SF (often by Jack
Vance), romantic SF ....
I'll leave it to others to discuss those and the
rest if they so choose. It's dinner time and I
have Dr Ballard's to cook.
As for where to start in SF (whatever those two letters stand for), it >depends on what you like. Hal Clement is the king of hard SF, keeping >within the boundaries of science - "Mission of Gravity" is is most
liked book.
Other hard SF writers who on occasion bend the rules
(allowing faster than light travel, for example) would include Arthur >Clarke, Poul Anderson, Asimov and Heinlein. Start with their early or >mid-career books.
On my first trip to Washington, DC in 1986, I was put up in a suburban
hotel for a number of days. Tiring of the hotel menu and seeing a
number of restaurants across the street, I headed there for some
variety. It was a short walk, after all.
But alas, the intersection at which I had to cross had nine street
lights, and despite watching for ten minutes, I never found a
combination that would let me cross this eight lane suburban street in >safety. (I could have walked a mile along the street to the New
Carrollton subway station and crossed there, I suppose).
On Apr 13, 2026, Nuno Silva wrote
(in article <10ri838$34rme$3@dont-email.me>):
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for publicIt's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate, >> > > seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes >> > > private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's
apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution? >> >
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap >> > air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more >> > before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density.
LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in
traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big
freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible. >> > You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the
other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area?
it?s a limited-access highway. Here?s a pic. <https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/los-angeles-ca-april-u-s-highway-u-s-route-downtown-los-angeles-u-s-highway-freeway-connects-california-oregon-94220390.jpg>
Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
I think that there are some pedestrian bridges. Not many. Thinking of actually crossing that thing on foot seems... ill-advised.
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and
laws?
Nope. It?s just not happening unless the pedestrian is insane. Here in Deepest South Flori-duh every now and again there?s a news item about some Flori-duh Man, usually drunk, who tried to cross the Interstate or the Turnpike.
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:[...]
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
[...]So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law >>>somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not? >>>Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>laws?
Los Angeles (the region) encompasses 510 square miles surrounded
on three sides by mountains, and the fourth by the ocean.
There are many controlled access roadways connecting the various >>communities.
Interstate Highways
105 (Century) (the newest major freeway)
The interchange beween 105 and 110 is a monster
four level, with metro rail running through the
middle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ixtz0/the_i110105_interchange_in_los_angeles/
110 (Harbor) (the portion between LA and Pasadena is the oldest)
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing urban neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart. In many cases the motorways are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not blocked. Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in
the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities. But the way it was done in LA was very problematic.
(Either way, it's terrible design, for sure. Walkability means a lot, be
it for *walking* in itself or to use public transit.)
Walkability is a problem in many US cities, but the lack of public transit
is worse. Many cities have public transit systems designed to get people from the suburbs into the city and back but without much ability to get around the city itself. The cities with really good public transit almost always have subway systems that predate the Eisenhower Highway System, combined with bus systems that join subway stops and run continuously.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:10:03 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<LA traffic>
On my first trip to Washington, DC in 1986, I was put up in a suburban >>hotel for a number of days. Tiring of the hotel menu and seeing a
number of restaurants across the street, I headed there for some
variety. It was a short walk, after all.
But alas, the intersection at which I had to cross had nine street
lights, and despite watching for ten minutes, I never found a
combination that would let me cross this eight lane suburban street in >>safety. (I could have walked a mile along the street to the New
Carrollton subway station and crossed there, I suppose).
I once solved a similar problem by using a conveniently-placed small
island in the middle of the six-lane road.
That is, I walked to the island on the first green walk light, and
from the island on the second. I am not saying that was an option for
you, for I don't remember ever encountering that intersection on the
two or three occasions I wandered about DC taking snapshots.
What I am calling an "island" here is a generally elliptical area,
surrounded by a curb, with grass (and maybe a small tree or shrubbery)
in it surrounded on all sides by traffic lanes. What the official name
may be I have no idea.
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law >>>somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not? >>>Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing urban >> neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart. In many cases the motorways >> are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not blocked. Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in
the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities. But the way it was
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in >mobility?
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:not?
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law >>>somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's
urbanOr is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing
motorwaysneighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart. In many cases the
Notare at least elevated so that the existing streets are not blocked.
wasso much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in
the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities. But the way it
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in >mobility?
On 2026-04-15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:10:03 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<LA traffic>
On my first trip to Washington, DC in 1986, I was put up in a suburban
hotel for a number of days. Tiring of the hotel menu and seeing a >>>number of restaurants across the street, I headed there for some >>>variety. It was a short walk, after all.
But alas, the intersection at which I had to cross had nine street >>>lights, and despite watching for ten minutes, I never found a >>>combination that would let me cross this eight lane suburban street in
safety. (I could have walked a mile along the street to the New >>>Carrollton subway station and crossed there, I suppose).
I once solved a similar problem by using a conveniently-placed small
island in the middle of the six-lane road.
That is, I walked to the island on the first green walk light, and
from the island on the second. I am not saying that was an option for
you, for I don't remember ever encountering that intersection on the
two or three occasions I wandered about DC taking snapshots.
What I am calling an "island" here is a generally elliptical area,
surrounded by a curb, with grass (and maybe a small tree or shrubbery)
in it surrounded on all sides by traffic lanes. What the official name
may be I have no idea.
Possibly "traffic island" and "refuge island", although I'd argue their
use must be well designed and planned so that it doesn't become an
excuse to enable or justify poor traffic light programming.
https://enwp.org/Traffic_island
https://enwp.org/Refuge_island
(And yes, I've seen plenty of examples of such poor management. As
traffic lights are usually made to control *vehicle* flow, pedestrian
lights are too often added as an afterthought, with planning focused on
the former, possibly needlessly breaking the crossing path, sometimes
even without corresponding to moments when it's actually safer to
cross.)
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not? >>>> Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing urban >>> neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart. In many cases the motorways >>> are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not blocked. Not >>> so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in
the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities. But the way it was >>> done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in
mobility?
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not? >>>> Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing urban >>> neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart. In many cases the motorways >>> are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not blocked. Not >>> so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in
the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities. But the way it was >>> done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in
mobility?
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
Also, some situations, such as buying a weeks worth of groceries for a
family of four or transporting a child's 9-kid soccer team from point
A to point B simply require not just an automobile but an SUV. And
that's in a city; in the country, the wide open spaces call for a lot
of vehicles, some road-legal and some restricted to the fields.
And then there's the guy who reported that he had planned his new
home's location for easy access to/from work by bus -- and then the
transit agency rerouted everything, leaving him in a public transit
desert.
On 4/16/2026 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silvaÿ <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's
not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing
urban
neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart.ÿ In many cases the
motorways
are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not
blocked.ÿÿ Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in >>>> the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities.ÿ But the way
it was
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in
mobility?
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so
automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
The Netherlands, in the 1970s, made a deliberate pivot away from cars
and to public transport and bicycles in the 1970s.
Of course, it helps to have a small, densely populated country,
and to be as flat as Kansas.
99% Invisible did an excellent podcast about the change: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/531-de-fiets-is-niets/
pt
On 4/16/2026 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:03:33 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silvaÿ <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area? Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's
not?
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and >>>>> laws?
It is not unusual in US cities to find high-speed motorways crossing
urban
neighborhoods, splitting neighborhoods apart.ÿ In many cases the
motorways
are at least elevated so that the existing streets are not
blocked.ÿÿ Not
so much in LA.
This is a side-effect of the massive increase in the highway system in >>>> the 1960s and 1970s, cutting through existing cities.ÿ But the way
it was
done in LA was very problematic.
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in
mobility?
There are a lot of communities (mostly suburban, AFAIK) that are so
automobile-centric that they don't even have sidewalks.
Seattle is trying to move from car-centric to something-else-centric,
but resistance is strong and alternatives are weak.
The Netherlands, in the 1970s, made a deliberate pivot away from cars
and to public transport and bicycles in the 1970s.
Of course, it helps to have a small, densely populated country,
and to be as flat as Kansas.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:10:03 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
<LA traffic>
On my first trip to Washington, DC in 1986, I was put up in a suburban
hotel for a number of days. Tiring of the hotel menu and seeing a
number of restaurants across the street, I headed there for some
variety. It was a short walk, after all.
But alas, the intersection at which I had to cross had nine street
lights, and despite watching for ten minutes, I never found a
combination that would let me cross this eight lane suburban street in
safety. (I could have walked a mile along the street to the New
Carrollton subway station and crossed there, I suppose).
I once solved a similar problem by using a conveniently-placed small
island in the middle of the six-lane road.
That is, I walked to the island on the first green walk light, and
from the island on the second. I am not saying that was an option for
you, for I don't remember ever encountering that intersection on the
two or three occasions I wandered about DC taking snapshots.
What I am calling an "island" here is a generally elliptical area,
surrounded by a curb, with grass (and maybe a small tree or shrubbery)
in it surrounded on all sides by traffic lanes. What the official name
may be I have no idea.
On 2026-04-13, WolfFan wrote:
On Apr 13, 2026, Nuno Silva wrote
(in article <10ri838$34rme$3@dont-email.me>):
On 2026-04-12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nuno Silva<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
One would think more people also means more opportunities for public transit. But some TV shows set in LA, assuming the location is accurate,
seem to show a lot of infrastructure designed in a way that prioritizes
private vehicles, so either it's not densely populated or it's apparently designed in a way that really tries to incentivate pollution?
It's the latter, but it's worse than even that would indicate.
First of all it is in a valley with an inversion layer that tends to trap
air masses. So smog in LA sometimes will stick around for a week or more
before it can escape from LA.
Then, you need a car to get anywhere in LA and it's not due to density. LA has public transit and it's not horrible but the busses get stuck in traffic just like cars do. And because LA has been chopped up with big freeways run through the middle of neighborhoods, walking is impossible.
You may be only half a mile away from your destination but it's on the other side of the 101 and you can't get there from here without a car.
So it's a segregated motorway even inside an urban area?
it?s a limited-access highway. Here?s a pic. <https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/los-angeles-ca-april-u-s-highway-u-s-route-
downtown-los-angeles-u-s-highway-freeway-connects-california-oregon-94220390
.jpg>
[added angle brackets as that seems to help in some newsreaders]
Or the law
somehow does not make provisions to allow crossing it even if it's not?
I think that there are some pedestrian bridges. Not many. Thinking of actually crossing that thing on foot seems... ill-advised.
Or is this just about safety with drivers who don't know the rules and laws?
Nope. It?s just not happening unless the pedestrian is insane. Here in Deepest South Flori-duh every now and again there?s a news item about some Flori-duh Man, usually drunk, who tried to cross the Interstate or the Turnpike.
From what you describe, then it's probably not legal to cross, but even
if it were, I can imagine drivers just pretending it to be a highway
(and that's a problem in itself).
It really is one of these things that should be outright banned in urban planning. Even outside of urban centers, those already create a huge
barrier, but *inside*...
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in >mobility?
It's more that the many individual cities (at the time the freeway
system was being designed) have all expanded into a single large
metropolis.
On 4/16/2026 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
The Netherlands, in the 1970s, made a deliberate pivot away from cars
and to public transport and bicycles in the 1970s.
Of course, it helps to have a small, densely populated country,
and to be as flat as Kansas.
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:Highways
But was this system planned with no regard for these cities? Or was it
part of some view where personal vehicles would be the only future in >>mobility?
The latter. Public transit mostly went away, highways came in.
were designed either for getting people from city to city or fromgetting
people from suburbs to city and back. Live in the suburbs in a housewith
a while picket fence, commute by car to the city every day to work.Some
This badly damaged a lot of American cities but none so badly as LA.
cities are working their way out of it, but slowly and poorly.
When I was a kid there were trolley car tracks all over Pittsburgh and
they were being pulled up....
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:20:24 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
When I was a kid there were trolley car tracks all over Pittsburgh and
they were being pulled up....
When I grew, Seattle Transit was 100% electric trolley.
Then they expanded the system, but making it electric was too
difficult. Or some such excuse. The overhead wires came down.
There was then a resurgence: some short lines either kept their
overhead wires/electric buses or they were put back in.
And then there's the South Lake Union Line. This is a new
overhead-line trolly, starting in 2007.
It's original name was "South Lake Union Trolley", but when that got
reduced to SLUT, the name was ... adjusted.
More may be coming. Overhead wires have advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, they have to be moved if the route changes. And buses
not tied to the wires are needed for temporary reroutes. But,
particularly in an area where virtually all electricity is green
(nuclear and hydro plus others), it sure beats out anything burning
oil.
On 2026-04-17, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 19:20:24 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
When I was a kid there were trolley car tracks all over Pittsburgh and >>>they were being pulled up....
When I grew, Seattle Transit was 100% electric trolley.
Then they expanded the system, but making it electric was too
difficult. Or some such excuse. The overhead wires came down.
There was then a resurgence: some short lines either kept their
overhead wires/electric buses or they were put back in.
And then there's the South Lake Union Line. This is a new
overhead-line trolly, starting in 2007.
It's original name was "South Lake Union Trolley", but when that got
reduced to SLUT, the name was ... adjusted.
More may be coming. Overhead wires have advantages and disadvantages.
Specifically, they have to be moved if the route changes. And buses
not tied to the wires are needed for temporary reroutes. But,
particularly in an area where virtually all electricity is green
(nuclear and hydro plus others), it sure beats out anything burning
oil.
And if (where the route allows) these are paired with rails, it becomes >easier to increase capacity too.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 109:28:39 |
| Calls: | 212 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,716 |
