🚀 go-pugleaf

  Bentley wrote:

  [correcting for the contemporary English error of misusing
the slash character, most often in place of a conjunction]

> I've often used this fun with numbers game: Is it fair to say there
> are 50 binary political issues? Pro-life vs pro-choice, pro-gun vs
> anti-gun, free trade vs foreign protection, etc? If so, how many
> possible combinations are there of potential political
> candidates [or] parties? [if there is one position per party]

  With only five yes-no (not "yes/no" [sic]) issues, you have 32
possible positions, and as the best book I own on proportional
representation points out, you can't exactly offer satisfaction
to everyone with only two political parties (and only two official
positions with respect to all issues combined).


> Tick-tock.
> Most people think for a second and say "Ah. 50 squared. 2,500."

  I can't believe people would routinely say it's the square.



> >That's actually a quite-common commute, Rockville-Reston [...]


> [...] But as soon as the lands
> around that new crossing filled up,

  THEY'RE ALREADY FILLED UP.  Both Klaatu and I have mentioned
a crossing where it's most needed, which is where it would serve
the most people, and that is where there already is development.

  If the crossing were located farther out from DC (toward
Frederick), there would be even more pressure to develop what
lands currently are undeveloped, than would be the effect of
a crossing where we have been talking about.

> Are there no similar negatives with a new, northern Potomac
> crossing?

  A crossing farther to the north would be in areas either currently
undeveloped or close to such areas (areas developed less than in
Rockville or Gaithersburg proper), and the result would be much more
pressure to develop currently-undeveloped lands.


  Dave Simpson



* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!