Frankie_Grove

If you have any questions about this tutorial, please contact Frankie_Grove. Welcome to the Sunken Highway on/off ramp tutorial! Tired of having wonderful sunken highways, but no realistic looking offramps? You have come to the right place! Before using this, see the sunken highway tutorial to learn how to make sunken highways! Some Dependencies: - NAM (Network Addon Mod) - Hole Digger Lots V2 - Basic Ability to use sunken highway - Sunken Highway wall eye candy Step 1: First step in creating an on/off ramp, a sunken highway, and a NAM puzzle piece created avenue overpass. Step 2: Delete the avenue and 'pull' the avenue back 2 spaces from the edge of the highway: Step 3: Use streets to lower the area to highway level, these also play a part as place-holders Step 4: Once again useing streets as land levelers, place 6 of them on either side of the 2 you already laid on all four sides along the highway: Step 5: Now that you have the land all laid to perfection, it is no longer neccesary to keep them, so just go ahead and bulldoze the streets. Next useing the Avenue Puzzle Pieces create an overpass with the + One Way Road/Road piece where the street pieces once were: Step 6: Now use the one way road Puzzle Pieces to create ramps to the + Avenue crossings, make sure the directions are right, or the sims won't use them. Step 7: Now bulldoze part of the highway 2 tiles from the end of the one-way ramps: Step 8: Now connect the highways again with one-way roads: Step 9: Now using the one-way road tool again from the HIGHWAY, draw roads to the tile BEFORE the end of the ramps, they look something like wings, also direction isn't important yet, as when you connect the ramps, it will change accordingly: Step 9: Finally! connect the 'wings' to the ramps, remeber to get the direction right, or sims won't even use the highway. Congratulations!! You have made your first sunken highway on/off ramp!! Please feel free to use this strategy in your cities, just please, give credit to respective owners. Thanks for looking! If you have any questions about this tutorial, please contact Frankie_Grove.

Whilst a ban of cluster-munitions in unconventional warfare would be acceptable, such is not the case. Problem is, with out the big 3 on board with this treaty, it will go no where. There are always alternatives, such as self-destructing unexploded munitions that would not cause harm years and years down the road, as opposed to just letting them sit there. They could be tagged, and any unexploded bomblets could be spotted and detonated without fear of collateral damage.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). quote> Okay . . . just so we are clear on what the terms mean (that seems to be an issue) does "supporting the community as a whole" include basic things like collecting garbage, fire houses, police stations, and schools?quote> Stuff like garbage collection and emergency services are among things that most anyone, including the average Libertarian, would consider essential to the good of the community.quote> Exactly. What I was referring to is things like huge taxes to pay for easily-abused social programs. The problem is Libertarians come in a rather large variety, I would think more so than the Liberal or Conservative groups. Libertarians are not exactly 'materialistic', but are of the 'leave me alone' type. It's about doing what you want to, within a set of guidelines or rules. No Liberals telling you that you must pay someone else's health bill, no Conservatives telling you not to buy beer on Sunday mornings. I think that the 'founding fathers' were much more Libertarian than anyone will willingly admit, they did not intend for us to restrict ourselves quite as much as we do now. They may have been a bit 'radical' by today's standards, but it sounded like a great idea to colonist breaking away from a obsolete system of kings and queens. Back to the presidential race....Hillary needs to quit. Obama needs to figure out how to appeal to the working class, and McCain needs to start getting his party more organized.

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama I was always under the impression that American Conservatives would be described as Economically Liberal (Smaller Government) and Socially Conservative (Restricting personal freedom, e.g Gay Marriage) So presumably Libertarians would be Economically and Socially Liberal with less economic and social restraints.quote> Economic Liberal means big government, i.e. Socialism (at least by US terms). An economic Conservative means little government intervention, i.e. Capitalistic. So Libertarians, in a more technical sense, are Social Liberals, Economic Conservative, but with a hint of Liberal in the economic sector (like emission regulation, or other basic business restrictions). Even though Liberal means 'freedom' in the Social sector, it is the opposite in the economic sector.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Thank you for that explanation, Frankie. I understand it, except for one sentence. Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove I like Libertarianism because it allows for a more independent lifestyle, as opposed to Liberalism. quote> I'm not following you there. What do you mean?quote> Liberals like big government programs with large taxes to support the 'community' as a whole; In a sense, making everyone dependent on each other (which falls under Economic Liberalism). The terms are commonly confused. Liberalism is the practice/policy of Liberals. Libertarian looks like Liberal, but they are completely different (aside from the Social Freedom aspect).

Originally posted by: zelgadis Well, it's all point of view, isn't it? To me, there's not much leap from the Libertarian form of less government to the Anarchist notion of no government. The Libertarian version goes much, much too far for my tastes. From what I've seen, Libertarianism goes far beyond simply opposing telling people what kinds of bricks they can build their houses of. ISF quote> In the simplest of terms, Libertarianism is Social Liberalism with Economic Conservatism. The best of both worlds really. Libertarians believe in small government, one that is there for protection mostly, not a whole lot of restrictions; Things like money, defense, public safety, etc. are the only purposes of government. I like Libertarianism because it allows for a more independent lifestyle, as opposed to Liberalism. Also it is in favor of 'state's rights', which helps tweak laws to satisfy specific regions, instead of a federal government slapping a law on the whole nation, regardless of who supports it/who doesn't. Libertarians are getting more and more supporters. A lot of Conservatives have drifted to the Libertarian party in recent years. The problem is that the party is not very well organized, nor does it have sufficient financial resources to really 'get noticed'. Some Libertarians are more radical than others, just like any other political party members.

You need Industry to actually 'use' the seaport. If you don't have any industrial zoning, the no connection zot will stay because there is nothing to send/receive.

Makes you wonder how much gas is wasted used during these things, eh?

As passionate as a lot of you seem to be about the existence of intelligent life out there, the odds are actually against you. A lot of what so called "Evolutionist" theorize is that what happened on Earth (life) was a fluke, a freak of nature, something with such a slim chance of ever happening that it's a miracle it occurred on Earth. That being said, it is highly unlikely that there are heaps and heaps of other life forms out there. If we were in fact created, then maybe there is so much distance between stars for a reason. Why would God be limited to just Earth? Perhaps we were spaced out in this way so that we would never bump into other lifeforms (if any). No doubt an all-powerful being would 'experiment' a bit, right? Hell, anything is possible really, there could be a multitude of Gods who all have their own little worlds. Perhaps that is why we can never really know how everything started, we were not meant to know - There must be a reason why our minds can be 'limited' in that aspect.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy it will take hundreds of years for train travel to replace cars i think.quote> I think by then we may have moved beyond rail travel tbhquote> Unless the invention of teleporting comes about, I seriously doubt trains will ever be phased out. They've already supported several countries for close to 190 years now. Trains can only get faster and more fuel efficient. I mean sure, when the 70's and 80's rolled around the US rail network about died off, but since then newer, faster, more efficient equipment has allowed them to regain their status as the #1 way to move freight. Passenger rail service may never return to its former glory, mainly because we've been spoiled into it taking only a couple of hours to cross the US by airplane.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK I think rail is never going to get such a huge market share in North America any time soon. Right now if you really wanted to travel without a car you could take Greyhound or Megabusquote> Much of our rail traffic is devoted to freight, and the companies can't be bothered to add passenger service, especially since passenger service almost killed the companies to begin with. With every new day, freight trains grab more traffic from trucks, railroad companies post massive record-breaking profits, and every day Amtrak ridership actually goes up (hard to believe, I know). As a matter of fact, it looks like US passenger rail service is making a comeback. I think the rising fuel prices, as well as all the problems with the airline companies, are allowing the railroads to start there new rise to dominant form of transportation.

It is really a matter of relativity. A lot of Evolutionist believe that Earth is a 'fluke', accident, freak of nature. I believe there is probably other life out there somewhere, but chances are distances are far and wide between such cultures, probably to a point where we'd never bump into each other. Question is, if we ever do bump into 'aliens' wonder if they'll be of the 'Independence Day' variety, the 'Signs' type, or even 'War of the Worlds' kind.....Like an episode of the X-Files once stated, we send un-manned missions all the times for first time exploration, so who's to say alien races wouldn't do the same?

Originally posted by: hamsterTK MARTA is a 1970's era subway system similiar to the DC metro. Originally Seattle was to be given funding for a rapid transit system called "Foward Thrust" but opposition resulted the money being given to the next in line, Atlanta. This was a interesting decision. In the late 70's Baltimore and Miami also attempted heavy rail and failed, both systems only attracted about 30k daily riders. In the early 80's many cities offered the opportunity to build subways, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, all cancelled their projects. The success of a new form of transit-Light rail, in San Diego and Calgary meant that from that point on LRT would be predominate form of new rail in the United States. Only LA has built a subway since that point. Atlanta is the only sprawling sunbelt city to have third-rail transit which makes it kind of interesting. MARTA does well for a system that is starved for funding due to an unfair government structure where the state of georgia, cities, and counties have all refused to allow the transit agency be funded. About 250,000 people use MARTA which has 2 lines and 2 branches, connects the airport and is a full out rapid transit system with tunnels and bridges. quote> A lot of opposition comes from other taxpayers in the state who are not comfortable unloading so much dough on something that won't affect them. Something like 80% of all Georgia tax dollars goes to Atlanta and its metro. I was recently in the more rural parts of Southwestern Georgia where most roads are dirt, or have not been maintained in so long that locals had to pull the pavement up so they could have a smooth ride. MARTA is a rather successful transit system, it is unique in a sense that it doesn't receive any funding on a national level. Expansion can be difficult, mainly due to the way Atlanta has developed.

Denying people the right to presidency based on their family/past family president is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If they've done what every other candidate has done, why deny them the right? Plenty of presidents come out of the blue (think, Jimmy Carter). If another family member gets elected on down the line, then obviously their predecessor did something right.

Gas is over $3.50 in Georgia, well over what we're used to. For the record, MARTA is heavily used, they've been working on expansions for quite some time now. Atlanta's problems also lie with sprawl, not the city proper, which is quite typical of sun belt cities.