Three choices. Please include your vote either in the comments section or email me: victoria@victoriataft.com.1. The Reality By Pass
2. Bridge Over the Freeway Why?
3. Bridge of the Frauds
Sunday, April 27, 2008
New Bike Bridge: Vote for New Name Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
A Bridge Too Faux
Or why not...
The Recycled Bridge
The Mode Equity Bridge
In honor of the great deficiency in bicycle infrastructure spending (less than 1.6%) in comparison to the amount of bicycling that is present in our community (~5%)
http://bikeportland.org/2007/12/14/committee-also-very-dissapointed-at-lack-of-bike-funding/
The Bridge over the Gap of Ignorance
Which is an homage to the hollow rhetoric that you are spewing based upon assumptions of the availability of funds and their appropriate use that are just not true. You are posing a straw man of "either or" that just isn't how it works.
I am with bfoote on this one.
I once believed that information could cure ignorance, but then came the age of so much information that the truth gets skewed amongst the crap.
People pick the "truth" that best suits them.
The real truth is more likely to be readily available than in the past, but with the volume of mis-information surrounding the truth, the truth is just as difficult as ever to obtain.
I think they should just give the bridge a number.
When The Cyclists pay for the Mode of thier choice I am all for it However I don't see a tax on those conveyances therefore they should stay in the parks with the other non Road Tax Payers
How about calling it "Sam the Tram Scam"?
dd877, did you read the post by bfoote?
Do you have other data to present, that contradicts his data.
Victoria, since when do you feel allowed to steal property?
This bridge photograph is the intellectual property of the photographer. You do not get to use it unless you have purchased the rights. Have you? Merely citing him is not enough.
I'm sure you and your lawyers would complain if someone else were to stream your radio show on another frequency. That is your intellectual property -- the way you make your living.
Why, therefore, do you feel it's OK to steal someone else's living?
Or do you disobey laws that are inconvenient for you?
There's a small problem with bfoote's post, Eileen: the argument that he supports with facts has nothing to do with the $5 million boondoggle the city is planning. The argument that he doesn't support with facts is relevant but at odds with the evidence at hand. He accuses Victoria of making assumptions about the availability of funds and their appropriate use while making no attempt to prove such an accusation. Victoria has cited numbers on the air showing that the City of Portland wants to spend over $5 million on this project when they're contemplating more taxes so they can fulfill basic infrastruction maintenance requirements. Both of these things that Victoria says are neither assumptions nor are they untrue. The availability of funds is established to be less than the amount that is needed. The appropriate use is certainly such projects as renovating bridges and making basic repairs to roads. I'm sorry that you chose to accept his argument without paying any attention to it.
Now, let's examine the argument he supports (although he only proves that his figures are accurate, not that his argument has merit). Essentially, he's saying that if 5% of the population bikes, 5% of the budget should be put towards that purpose (actually, the number the site quotes is 4.2% which is closer to 4 than 5. The danger in citing a source is that someone will actually look it up and be able to call you on any distortions). Given the extraordinarily low amount of money it requires to maintain bike infrastruction, his argument is laughable. The fact that a pro-biking committee and Sam Adams are both unhappy that the government doesn't support their dream mode of transit is no proof that the government should. The lion's share is designated for vehicular and freight improvements which is where the designation SHOULD be for a port city that relies on vehicles for both personal and mass transit. I'm sorry that your heart bleeds for the poor bicyclists but bfoote's argument only has merit if you assume that the government should be going out of its way to encourage bicycle use. Otherwise it is, as I've said before, absurd.
"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
Furthermore:
"§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Victoria is using the image for the purpose of commentary or criticism. She's using it for nonprofit educational purposes and there is no chance that her use will alter the market for the work in question. Therefore, her use is justified under American copyright law. It is wholly legal. I'm sorry, David, but you need to take a refresher course before accusing someone of breaking the law.
Keith
Where did I saw my heart bleeds for the "poor bicyclists"?
I simply asked scottiebill if he had any data to contradict the data offered by bfoote.
More on your other points later (maybe),
I have to go to work.
Eileen, Maybe you should get your posters on this blog right. I did not ask bfoote anything. It was dd877.
In previous posts, you have argued emphatically that biking and alternative transportation should be encouraged and that bikes should get a good share of funding; you called the opposing position "selfish." Since your argument there is virtually identical to bfoote's here, I summerize the position as a whole as your heart bleeding for the poor bicyclists.
I think it's fair use, but I don't want to tick anyone off. I believe free advertising is fair trade, but, alas, Dave doesn't think so. Dave, one thing, if I tried to receive compensation for every piece of intellectual property I've created that has been stolen from me, I'd be a rich woman.
Its called the toll bridge
and there better be a bike pool lane on it and violators prosecuted
for riding in it alone.
Eileen said:
"Keith,
Even in my previous posts, I never indicated my heart bleeds for poor bicyclists.
I never said this, or called them poor. That is quite a stretch from my thinking that this form of transportation should be encouraged.
I am completely in favor of bicycles paying their fair share.
They use much less space than cars, and put much less wear and tear on roads.
They spew less pollution.
But I don't have a problem with having those using the public roads, licensed. Of course the fee should be MUCH lower than it is for a motor vehicle, based on the bicycle causing so much less wear and tear on the road.
Gas and vehicle taxes are NOT the only funding used for roads.
I don't know the exact details in Portland.
But in some major cities, where studies were done, the personal vehicle turned out to be the most subsidized form of transportation.
register-all-bikes; your statement is ridiculous.
Even motorcycles get to use the pool lanes. They made an argument for this, based on their size, and max occupancy.
However I do agree that they should fine those who break traffic laws.
But as I said before, I witness multiple motor vehicles doing this every single day. I see this from motor vehicles far more than from bicycles."
And I witness bicycles using roads as if they were cars and were entitled to drive down the middle of a lane and refuse to scoot to one side for the vehicle that the road was designed to accommodate. But putting that aside, I found it curious that you supported bfoote's argument, chided someone for not trying to refute his data (which, as I noted, was flawed) but then focused on one of my turns of phrase in your response to my argument against him, leaving my questioning of him entirely unanswered. I can only conclude that, by this, you meant to silently concede my argument. I'm gratified. :)
Keith,
NOT addressing something in no way means I agree with you.
But if you wish to interpret it as such, go ahead.
There are multiple reasons for me not addressing something.
These reasons include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following:
1) I feel it is pointless (we got there in one discussion)
2) I don't have enough knowledge to know what data is correct.
3) I haven't read your response.
4) I have nothing new to add (not that I won't repeat myself, but at some point it is pointless to do so).
Asking someone if they have refuting data, does NOT mean I agree with the data I am asking about. I may just not know.
I agreed with fboote on some points, I don't know if the data he refers to is actually correct.
I have not studied it.
Sometimes challenging a person to present some data to back up their view gets them thinking about why they have that view.
bfoote is the best person to respond to your responses to his data.
I was actually being facetious, Eileen... I knew perfectly well that you didn't agree with me.
I'm sure he is. I've also noticed that certain people seem extremely disinclined to answer a challenge to their assertions. Like that fool in the capitalism/global warming thread (obviously not talking about CX since she responded to my posts).
Oh.
Cx didn't respond to your last post, not the one where you called her "normal" indicating you were somehow smarter than her.
I am not sure if Jack was defending me or Cx, maybe both of us.
But I don't agree with his statements. I think you are driven more by arrogance, than a desire to pick on anyone.
How is calling someone "normal" an insult? It simply conveys my impression that she numbers among the vast majority of the population. It's not a comment on her intelligence, something I would think she'd be able to determine on her own.
Arrogance? No, simply a belief that I'm right and you're wrong which is sort of a typical belief when you're disagreeing with someone.
Post a Comment