11–20 of 90 posts
I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice. On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
Like every other publication in the USA?
I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice. On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Like every other publication in the USA? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Vice has a POLICY of taking money from companies in exchange for allowing editorial control. As in, they encourage and have acknowledged this practice. They represent a strange, blurry hybrid between an ad agency and a news outlet.
I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice. On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Like every other publication in the USA? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
There's a significant difference between Vice and the publications (like the NY Times) that PG refers to in his article: Vice has a POLICY of taking money from companies in exchange for allowing editorial control. As in, they encourage and have acknowledged this practice. They represent a strange, blurry hybrid between an ad agency and a news outlet.
I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice. On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
Careful here. I recommend you watch an episode of Vice on HBO. I had my doubts as well, but the reporting on that show is great and my only criticism is that its too short. The article you posted is just an opinion of that person and she doesn't provide specific examples or lay it out objectively. I just recommend checking it out and then judge it for yourself.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
I guess it still needs to get a little worse.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.
That said, it would likely not work because the distances are much further in LA, and following the path of the freeway is not going to be the most direct route on a bicycle.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider. I guess it still needs to get a little worse.
The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable option if you commute during typical rush-hours. However, it has very little service outside traditional commute hours, and its overall ridership is not very impressive, especially given the size (it gets less daily ridership than the much smaller subway does).