I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
The 1000 seat auditorium looks way too small for WWDC. On the floor plans it is circular and it has floors underground also, there is a lobby, exhibition area and also a theater. There is a tunnel connecting to it from the main building. It is 100,000 square feet but I think that is still too small for the 5000 people that come to Apple's World Wide Developers Conference.
It's not really meant to hold WWDC-type keynotes. Even thought it's a 45 min-1 hr trip to San Francisco, there are at least TONS of nice hotels and places for visitors to go in SF. It's far more than a keynote, after all. Tens of sessions going on, keynotes, meals, concerts, lodging, transportation, etc. Downtown San Francisco is much more suited for that. Cupertino is a nice town but it's pretty much a suburb.
The 1,000 seat theater is more likely for non-WWDC press events (which are becoming more frequent in the absence of Macworld). September iPod/iPhone events, March iPad events, internal training and guest speakers, etc.
Thanks for the serious answer about the Planned Development zoning. Everyone on this site seems to think that just because a company wants to build a large facility, that means they have to get special government approval. That may or may not be desirable (I would say it might be), but the reality, this being America, is that many places allow you to build "as of right" - i.e., if you build within the zoning limits, the only thing required is that you build to code. "Planned development" zoning is a way for local government to require their approval for whatever gets built. That way, if this land parcel were being developed by 300 different developers on 300 different 1/2-acre sites, providing, say, 25 jobs per site, or 7500 jobs, the city council would need to approve 300 different projects, keeping them nice & busy.
Not many cities, at least not in California, let you do a whole lot on the basis of over-the-counter type permits anymore. The idea behind planned developments is not to keep city planners busy but to plan cities better. The city would much rather have large areas planned at one time (if not built at one time) than in many small bits and pieces. Generally these PD zones also allow more flexibility than straight zoning. A company like Apple might be able to (for instance) make a case that their off-street parking requirements should be reduced due to how their employees work shifts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Words of wisdom.
Cloudgazer consistently makes well thought-out and constructive posts. I read his posts because they are informative just as I read yours. Disagreeing with a specific point does not take away for the value he adds to the forum. I know I disagree with you two at time, and you with me, but I never once felt your posts areN'T value added.
Cloudgazer consistently makes well thought-out and constructive posts. I his posts because they are informative just as I read yours. Disagreeing with a specific point does not take away for the value he adds to the forum. I know I disagree with you two at time, and you with me, but I never once felt your posts are value added.
I hope you didn't say exactly what you meant here.
Anyway, my last two encounters with this poster, including this one, were entirely negative. They involve his offering caustic remarks about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about, and he added nothing to the discussion but antagonism. That is why I suggested that he stick to commenting on subjects he does know something about rather than reflexively responding to every topic.
Wow am I the only one who sees this design for what it is?
Clearly the underground torus is a linear accelerator, being disguised as a subterranean "parking lot".
The clear purpose of the linear accelerator is to generate anti-matter, need one delineate what that is used for!!!
With the anti-matter the propulsion and "self contained energy" generation is explained. As is the need to get the power usage off the grid...
Further the anti-matter is known to be used for generation of anti-gravity, and clearly a second generation RDF is being worked on in the extensive R&D facility.
Particle accelerator agreed, so do you expect the "antigravity" function to be able to make this thing actually fly?
I'm considering patenting a whole pile of levitation by products, just you watch, in 15 years everyone will be saying "how could you patent such an obvious idea!"
I hope you didn't say exactly what you meant here.
Anyway, my last two encounters with this poster, including this one, were entirely negative. They involve his offering caustic remarks about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about, and he added nothing to the discussion but antagonism. That is why I suggested that he stick to commenting on subjects he does know something about rather than reflexively responding to every topic.
You are the fellow who is resorting to ad hominems
You are the one who has made false claims regarding what cupertino city council said
You are the one making 'helpful suggestions about what I should or shoudn't post
Your posts were regarding what Cupertino city council had said, so by your own argument you should be a person who knows what they said yet oddly you were in complete error on that subject. It would appear that you believe that a person should only speak on subjects at which they are expert and it would further appear that you are unable to determine accurately which subjects you are expert at or not - so by your own argument you shouldn't post at all.
That's not my position though, I just think you should try to post with a little more graciousness, a little more care in checking your sources and a willingness to acknowledge that even in areas in which you believe you are expert you are still capable of error, just like everybody else.
Look at the layout for the underground carpark and then just turn each parking space into 2 cubicles. Done.
Maybe. You can cheat a little on the parking spaces and have them not quite exactly rectangular and no one would notice. Slightly smaller towards the inside than outside. I guess most cubicle partitions have enough give in the joints that you could "flex" a ling line of them into a curve. Whatever. Maybe someone will sneak out a photo when all is said and done...
You are the fellow who is resorting to ad hominems
You are the one who has made false claims regarding what cupertino city council said
You are the one making 'helpful suggestions about what I should or shoudn't post
Your posts were regarding what Cupertino city council had said, so by your own argument you should be a person who knows what they said yet oddly you were in complete error on that subject. It would appear that you believe that a person should only speak on subjects at which they are expert and it would further appear that you are unable to determine accurately which subjects you are expert at or not - so by your own argument you shouldn't post at all.
That's not my position though, I just think you should try to post with a little more graciousness, a little more care in checking your sources and a willingness to acknowledge that even in areas in which you believe you are expert you are still capable of error, just like everybody else.
Look at the layout for the underground carpark and then just turn each parking space into 2 cubicles. Done.
Actually, I originally thought that diagram was the office space and was thinking, "that's a lot of very small cubicles with no offices and no conference rooms."
Feel free to quote the exact time in the youtube recording of the meeting when somebody said what you claimed they said. You only have to watch about half of it, the first half is just Steve talking. Shouldn't take you long.
Or after watching it again and realizing that you're wrong you could post an apology - I'm a big enough man to accept it
Feel free to quote the exact time in the youtube recording of the meeting when somebody said what you claimed they said. You only have to watch about half of it, the first half is just Steve talking. Shouldn't take you long.
Or after watching it again and realizing that you're wrong you could post an apology - I'm a big enough man to accept it
It's at 3:14 in this statement by the Mayor of Cupertino on June 9, 2011:
As quoted in the above article, where he responds to a reporter's question: "there is no chance that we are saying no." It should take you forever to admit your error, but I guess we're all used to that by now.
Comments
I have a couple of pieces of advice for you. First, try sticking to subjects you know. I'm not sure what subject you do know, since you seem to have a need to respond to everything anyone posts here. Second, if you do feel a need to respond to a post of mine, at least try reading what I wrote and responding to that, not some fantasy version of your own invention.
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
Jeesh, I was just asking a question. Snark-o-rama, thanks a lot.
Oh, that's another one.
Um, who here is loud-mouthed? Oh, right, it's you. Probably you're the teenager, too.
Not really helping your case with the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
It is the APPTAGON, Like the Pentagon, except it is round.
Know that feeling you get when you chew on a piece of tin foil? That's the feeling I got when reading that sentence.
Probably because the -agon suffix doesn't apply to circles. And infinitasgon just doesn't work.
The 1000 seat auditorium looks way too small for WWDC.
It's not really meant to hold WWDC-type keynotes. Even thought it's a 45 min-1 hr trip to San Francisco, there are at least TONS of nice hotels and places for visitors to go in SF. It's far more than a keynote, after all. Tens of sessions going on, keynotes, meals, concerts, lodging, transportation, etc. Downtown San Francisco is much more suited for that. Cupertino is a nice town but it's pretty much a suburb.
The 1,000 seat theater is more likely for non-WWDC press events (which are becoming more frequent in the absence of Macworld). September iPod/iPhone events, March iPad events, internal training and guest speakers, etc.
Thanks for the serious answer about the Planned Development zoning. Everyone on this site seems to think that just because a company wants to build a large facility, that means they have to get special government approval. That may or may not be desirable (I would say it might be), but the reality, this being America, is that many places allow you to build "as of right" - i.e., if you build within the zoning limits, the only thing required is that you build to code. "Planned development" zoning is a way for local government to require their approval for whatever gets built. That way, if this land parcel were being developed by 300 different developers on 300 different 1/2-acre sites, providing, say, 25 jobs per site, or 7500 jobs, the city council would need to approve 300 different projects, keeping them nice & busy.
Not many cities, at least not in California, let you do a whole lot on the basis of over-the-counter type permits anymore. The idea behind planned developments is not to keep city planners busy but to plan cities better. The city would much rather have large areas planned at one time (if not built at one time) than in many small bits and pieces. Generally these PD zones also allow more flexibility than straight zoning. A company like Apple might be able to (for instance) make a case that their off-street parking requirements should be reduced due to how their employees work shifts.
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
Words of wisdom.
Give up. This guy is an obsessive-compulsive responder. And, he is convinced he knows everything about everything. Best to ignore him and let him have his say, despite the fact that it might offend one's sensibilities....
Words of wisdom.
Cloudgazer consistently makes well thought-out and constructive posts. I read his posts because they are informative just as I read yours. Disagreeing with a specific point does not take away for the value he adds to the forum. I know I disagree with you two at time, and you with me, but I never once felt your posts areN'T value added.
Cloudgazer consistently makes well thought-out and constructive posts. I his posts because they are informative just as I read yours. Disagreeing with a specific point does not take away for the value he adds to the forum. I know I disagree with you two at time, and you with me, but I never once felt your posts are value added.
I hope you didn't say exactly what you meant here.
Anyway, my last two encounters with this poster, including this one, were entirely negative. They involve his offering caustic remarks about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about, and he added nothing to the discussion but antagonism. That is why I suggested that he stick to commenting on subjects he does know something about rather than reflexively responding to every topic.
Wow am I the only one who sees this design for what it is?
Clearly the underground torus is a linear accelerator, being disguised as a subterranean "parking lot".
The clear purpose of the linear accelerator is to generate anti-matter, need one delineate what that is used for!!!
With the anti-matter the propulsion and "self contained energy" generation is explained. As is the need to get the power usage off the grid...
Further the anti-matter is known to be used for generation of anti-gravity, and clearly a second generation RDF is being worked on in the extensive R&D facility.
Particle accelerator agreed, so do you expect the "antigravity" function to be able to make this thing actually fly?
I'm considering patenting a whole pile of levitation by products, just you watch, in 15 years everyone will be saying "how could you patent such an obvious idea!"
I hope you didn't say exactly what you meant here.
Anyway, my last two encounters with this poster, including this one, were entirely negative. They involve his offering caustic remarks about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about, and he added nothing to the discussion but antagonism. That is why I suggested that he stick to commenting on subjects he does know something about rather than reflexively responding to every topic.
You are the fellow who is resorting to ad hominems
You are the one who has made false claims regarding what cupertino city council said
You are the one making 'helpful suggestions about what I should or shoudn't post
Your posts were regarding what Cupertino city council had said, so by your own argument you should be a person who knows what they said yet oddly you were in complete error on that subject. It would appear that you believe that a person should only speak on subjects at which they are expert and it would further appear that you are unable to determine accurately which subjects you are expert at or not - so by your own argument you shouldn't post at all.
That's not my position though, I just think you should try to post with a little more graciousness, a little more care in checking your sources and a willingness to acknowledge that even in areas in which you believe you are expert you are still capable of error, just like everybody else.
Look at the layout for the underground carpark and then just turn each parking space into 2 cubicles. Done.
Maybe. You can cheat a little on the parking spaces and have them not quite exactly rectangular and no one would notice. Slightly smaller towards the inside than outside. I guess most cubicle partitions have enough give in the joints that you could "flex" a ling line of them into a curve. Whatever. Maybe someone will sneak out a photo when all is said and done...
You are the fellow who is resorting to ad hominems
You are the one who has made false claims regarding what cupertino city council said
You are the one making 'helpful suggestions about what I should or shoudn't post
Your posts were regarding what Cupertino city council had said, so by your own argument you should be a person who knows what they said yet oddly you were in complete error on that subject. It would appear that you believe that a person should only speak on subjects at which they are expert and it would further appear that you are unable to determine accurately which subjects you are expert at or not - so by your own argument you shouldn't post at all.
That's not my position though, I just think you should try to post with a little more graciousness, a little more care in checking your sources and a willingness to acknowledge that even in areas in which you believe you are expert you are still capable of error, just like everybody else.
100% baloney.
Look at the layout for the underground carpark and then just turn each parking space into 2 cubicles. Done.
Actually, I originally thought that diagram was the office space and was thinking, "that's a lot of very small cubicles with no offices and no conference rooms."
100% baloney.
Eh… this one I'm just not seeing.
100% baloney.
Feel free to quote the exact time in the youtube recording of the meeting when somebody said what you claimed they said. You only have to watch about half of it, the first half is just Steve talking. Shouldn't take you long.
Or after watching it again and realizing that you're wrong you could post an apology - I'm a big enough man to accept it
Eh? this one I'm just not seeing.
Maybe he means it's a serving suggestion?
after eating all that you'll need a few of these…
Round. With a different center.
It's one giant conspiracy!
Introducing iMints. Don't stick them in your eyes.
Eh? this one I'm just not seeing.
I can't help but think they might be missing a trick here:
What better way to put a ding in the universe than plant a giant Apple logo on the Earth. Of course, it's not so easy to zip round it on a Segway.
I can't help but think they might be missing a trick here:
What better way to put a ding in the universe than plant a giant Apple logo on the Earth. Of course, it's not so easy to zip round it on a Segway.
That's really well done for a thrown-together Photoshop of it.
Feel free to quote the exact time in the youtube recording of the meeting when somebody said what you claimed they said. You only have to watch about half of it, the first half is just Steve talking. Shouldn't take you long.
Or after watching it again and realizing that you're wrong you could post an apology - I'm a big enough man to accept it
It's at 3:14 in this statement by the Mayor of Cupertino on June 9, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FEwHk9Ap7I
As quoted in the above article, where he responds to a reporter's question: "there is no chance that we are saying no." It should take you forever to admit your error, but I guess we're all used to that by now.