chris0101

I haven't been playing Simcity 4 in a while now, so I probably will need to refresh my memory. I stopped playing in September 2009, but now I've restarted somewhat. Out of curiosity, what happened to the original RTMT v4 project? I remember that it had some big ideas that would change mass transit in simcity pretty Reading above, it seems that you've had some setbacks.

Out of curiosity then, what will the final project be like? It seems these days that Cities XL has died unless the 2011 version releases something truly big. I myself am going back to SC4 more and more when I wish to play.

I think that cities are going to have to be "self-sufficient" nowadays with the online play gone (ex: cities should have a bit of access to all resources) at this point without the ability to interact with other cities.

I suppose that the rest of us who haven't bought the game should just wait and see ... If they do go bankrupt as the poster above fears, then all of the online content is useless because they won't likely release their servers. Perhaps one development if they go bankrupt could be that they release the source code to the general public. That may lead to modding of a true successor worthy of SC4. Of course, bankruptcy is not what we want, just a good game.

Having played cities XL on my friend's PC, at this point, I'd recommend staying away for now. There are just too many unfixed bugs. Plus there are things last mass transit that will be "added" later on. This is a game that has a lot of potential, but seems to be unfinished and needs a lot more work.

Exactly what do you get that is worth the price of the limited edition though? Has anyone bought the limited edition that can enlighten on whether it even justifies the price? For now, I am in favour of not getting this game until there is a real single player game.

At this point, unless the single player features are vastly improved and the bugs completely fixed (I am often ticked off at how many companies release games knowing that they are buggy), I recommend a community boycott.

Sad. I did support many of his views and perspectives. I do hope that there will be somebody as energetic and as active as Ted Kennedy was. Perhaps that was why Ted Kennedy was pushing so hard for a replacement. It is an end of a generation indeed, the Kennedy brothers.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: manticorefan Religion has built more hospitals and universities than atheism has. quote> Relgioius people have built more hospitals and universitites than atheist people have, yes. Which, considering that they heavily outnumber the atheists, and did so even more throughout history up until recent years, is to be expected. Add to that that atheists, not belonging to a religous institution, do not have a huge organization to back them. Individual people don't build hospitals, groups of organized people do. Athesits simply don't organize the same wat religious people do. Many don't like that sort of establishment and far prefer to act independently and unilaterally in what they do. Which precludes doing anything too significant unless you're a millionaire.quote> Most of the existing hospitals and universities (at least in the Western world) are predominantly secular. Sure, you have schools like Regent University, but they are the exception and not the rule. And why is it that the universities and institutions most noted for scientific and technological breakthroughs are mainly secular? Science challenges the established thinking and encourages critical thinking while religion emphasizes faith and often blind devotion without skepticism.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 There he goes again... bringing up the evil nature of American conservatives and how there wrong and to blame for all our issues. quote> Defensive, aren't you? You've just proved my point that everything I say will be interpreted as anti-Americanism or anti-conservatism, etc. If you re-read my statement, I concluded that the US has both its ups and downs. Ironically, there are a large number of Americans who do agree with what I say, just as there are those that disagree. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 But, there is no easy choice for our situation. Regions like the Great Lakes and Northeast are more industrial, and are facing more and more trouble surviving. Looking at the current downturn, those regions will most likely recover last. But, we could risk hurting the western and southern states in order to save other regions. What we need to do however is make a decision and take the action needed. I think we need to save our industrial sector to a point, and besides, from what I can tell, all great world economies had a strong industrial sector. Besides that, the consumer economy is one that frankly, I don't think works for us.quote> Ah, finally, something we agree. It is true that historically, empires like the British, the Spanish, the Dutch, etc. had a strong manufacturing base. Just before their collapse, much of their economy turned to finance. There's more money the way the economy is set up to move money around that already exists than to create new wealth - hence the sheer power of the finance industry today. The real question is - can you persuade the powers that run the US of this? Can you change a system when the people that got into power are there because the current system put them in? Consumerism is the dominant ideology in the US, like it or not, and most people are very firmly into it. Less than 10% are employed by the manufacturing sector, and I'll bet an even smaller percentage in 10 years if the current trends continue.

Originally posted by: manticorefan At least someone here understands that the US has the most to lose under globalism. It's not some outmoded archaic view that drives rejection of it, but the recognition of its danger. The rest of the world, being so far behind us in so many areas, would love to have the field artificially leveled. quote> Actually, the US has much both to gain and to lose under globalism. Business opportunities can both cost US jobs through outsourcing and create new opportunities. Furthermore, the increasingly global nature of the world means that the dominant power has a greater ability to influence and set the future course for the entire world, not just individual nations. The rest of the world is not so "far behind" actually. As Susan Hockfield, president of MIT acknowledged, the US is falling behind in terms of research, education, and indeed healthcare. In terms of the percentage of people employed by small businesses (ex: businesses with less than 1,000 people), the US is also lower. More people in the US work for larger corporations than in most other developed nations. Indeed, this is a serious problem for the US as it puts the idea of "creative destruction" needed to drive capitalism in serious jeopardy. I myself find it ironic that all anti-war, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-corporate ideas are immediately accused of as "anti-Americanism". Likewise, the idea that "socialism" is all bad, and that "capitalism" is superior in every way is ridiculous, just as the idea that universal healthcare will turn the US into the USSR. Everything in this world has its ups and downs, its problems, and the US is no different.

I have found homeschooling to be inconsistent. Again, like public education, it will depend on the teacher's competence/knowledge, along with the student's desire/willingness to learn and spend the effort to do so. There are no simply solutions to the education problems that plague modern society. Indeed, experimentation of solutions has in some cases, worsened already far from perfect systems. What we must consider is what is our goal? To make everyone university material? To make them just barely able to function in society and let them choose if they should go on? Something in between? Shall we focus on street smarts over academics? What is basic information that everyone should know and what isn't? To see if we can get all the people a chance to advance in social class and give them appropriate training for doing so? One of the dividing things in this thread is not only what we think is a better system, but what our goals ultimately are.

I downloaded the NAM June 2009 version earlier this month. I'd like to know, how do you install new bridges now that the "Additional Bridges" folder is gone. I downloaded bridges like this one: www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php I created an Additional Bridges folder (like in the previous) and put the folder in the Additional Bridges. It says to update the bridge controller? What does that mean? The bridge does not show anyways when I drag any type of highway. Is there something that I missed?

Originally posted by: Simsamerica Chris0101: There is some Video on Youtube with the link, Search SC4 Tutorial or Sim City 4 tutorial, its by EdwinNegintig, heres the URL of the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo5ELFXMYpI the link to the download is to the right, click more info. quote> Unfortunately, that is not it. There is rail to subway, GLR to subway, el-rail to rail, and el-rail to GLR, but no GLR to subway on avenue. Thanks for trying though.

Originally posted by: mayor_brando Amazing downtowns everyone! I would post mine, but it's just a dozen of those darn Wren Insuraces at the moment, but when it's done there will be more variety.quote> There's a mod called go away wren for that. Check in the mods section of STEX. Plus download more BATs. More bats generally means less repitition.

I posted this one in the other thread about showing CBDs, but here's one of my downtown (as always, click to see in full resolution!) It's from my region Terix. I'm thinking right now of making it into a CJ. Here is another one showing an upscal residential district. Still looking for good BATs. Hopefully, my cities will get a little less repititive.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo or libertarianism is dangerous.quote> For the most part, yes. However, I do not understand why you lumped libertarianism with preserving the status quo. Often libertarians are against the status quo, and want change. Different change or perhaps not the best change possible, but they still want change. quote> I think that you may have misunderstood me. I will edit that statement to make it more clear. I put down libertarianism as well because I feel that the world would be a better place if everyone worked together than alone. Of course, that is an unachievable ideal. Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus My solution is a simple one -- those who do not care about education should not be forced to get one. A person cannot be forced to learn or be interested in anything, anyway. If they turn out adverse later in life because of it, then they can educate themselves (in some sort of program avaliable). Only this works for some people to stimulate interest. quote> The problem with that is that when those who don't want an education don't get an education, they can often drag down the entire nation with them. Productivity declines and the dropouts are not the only ones that suffer. There are also those who are shortsighted. I have met more than a few people in my life who have dropped out of high school and deeply regretted their actions. (I am interested in what percentage of people who actually do drop out end up regretting their actions. Proably a substantial amount.) The question is, should such people still be allowed to drop out? There are consequences on both society and a very good chance that people will end up regretting their decisions. What programs exist for such people? And what of the costs to society in the lost productivity had this person been forced to be educated? These are not easy questions to answer and like this entire thread, it is often very subjective.

No matter what our differences, I think that we all agree that the current plan by the Democrats is going to be a major failure. I live in Canada, and I've seen th systems elsewhere. I've also lived in the US before. I am convinced that with greater transparency and accountability, government can provide a better healthcare system for the public than any private organization could except for the very wealthy. Bureaucracy and waste are inevitable in any system, but a better structure, government can simplify things considerably. Whenever I see the stats for the percentage of people that go bankrupt in the US due to overwhelming medical bills, I really do wonder, why don't try an alternative? If something doesn't work, change. I view this "government option" as a failure as it includes too many elements of the current system, which is failing. I am very disappointed in Obama who campaigned so much on a platform of change, yet fails to deliver it. Just another politician. Sadly, he is not as accountable for his actions as he should be. This is a failure common to all liberal democracies at this point. I fully expect that not everyone here will agree with me. What do you think is the solution? The status quo evidently is a massive failure with endlessly escalating costs.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Originally posted by: chris0101 Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo or libertarianism is dangerous. Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good. quote> well then maybe you don't know American politics very good because Everyone agrees something needs to be done, Both conservatives in this country, and liberals in this country think something needs to be done on the Education system. quote> Then what exactly is the right proposing? Privatization is the only thing I have heard. Unfortunately, that will bring about its own set of problems from widening the rich-poor education gap (as the lower income people will have difficulties affording school, which lowers the quantity of education of the entire nation) and non-standard systems for grading. The religious right is also proposing home schooling. Home schooling simply does not work for anything above the primary level because a parent does not have the required knowledge to teach everything that a child of that level needs. That is why you have multiple teachers in high school; multiple people who specialize in their specific field. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Easier said than done, though we may be able to start once we know where we want to go. So again, what type of change? Change for the sake of change is bad, just like you've said, which it seems your just mentioning change for the sake of changing the system and politics. If you want to get a high skilled job, or high income job, you get the education, and you work your butt off. Even those who don't want to go to the sky still get the basic education for a well paying job that can support themselves. In the case of many students, they don't care, they probably won't care even if the teacher and system try's to de everything to make themcare. In the case of some of the minority students at my school, they didn't care, even when the teachers tried everything possible to make them try, they still didn't. Just saying we need to change there perception, isn't going to do it, we can analyze all we want, we can try this, and that, it still probably won't work. Because the value, the culture, and the home life of those students defines them, there parent's values are moved onto them. It's a cycle of cultural undervaluing. It's going to take a lot in order to change that culture to value education, and it will take multiple generations in order to improve. The question is still how we start the change.quote> By no means did I imply that this would happen overnight. This will indeed be a slow, progressive shift. To begin with, when I entered this debate, I did not pretend to have all of the answers. You don't either. Nobody does. I think that this is going to have to be done person by person, slowly. Culture is something that is notoriously difficult to change, especially (and I expect to be flamed for this) in a conservative nation. I have no intentions of rewarding laziness or "feel good" things. I believe for example that the lowering of test standards and grade inflation greatly damages the credibility of the tests, especially when other nations are being more objective. If you want a skilled job, you'll have to study for it and work towards it. No questions there. The problem is that when everyone starts to lose their faith in the value of education, the entire nation suffers, including the people that do study hard. Prroducivity declines and the short term becomes more important than the longer term. There needs to be an understanding that declines in education, which will lead to lower productivity rates, and a smaller and smaller portion of people with high paying jobs will lead to a general decline in the competitiveness in the US. On an individual level, this means a gradual lowering of the standard of living unless society does get better educated. Asking people to sacrifice for society does not work. When the people themselves are in danger of losing something (in this case their standard of living relative to the world), they are usually willing to fight for it. Another consideration is - can you really support yourself without much post-secondary education. Any professional job, high tech jobs, and the like are increasingly requiring university degrees. It's like the way that high school once was. Even the trades are now requring certifications that you have to pay thousands for and work for. I would imagine that even things like construction are going to need more and more post-secondary learning. Manufacturing jobs are going overseas and there is no reason to believe that this spell will stop until the Western world doesn't make much anymore. So what does that leave us? Low paid service jobs and low skilled jobs like sanitation workers along with the military (fro this reason, I feel that the approach in Canada of not accepting people becuase they can't find a job elsewhere, but only becuase they really want to join is the correct approach). If you live in a city with high living costs, the minimum wage (or close to that) is hardly a living wage. That is another motivation for getting yourself out of the mess.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 darn! and i thought my perfectly rectangular grids were pretty! beyond the dazzling glass and steel jungle of east argon and argonia lies a perpetual area of churning smog. with some tall smokestacks and chimneys belching out more smoke and pollutants to add to this toxic air mixture. quote> Lol - what are the living costs in this city? What is the lifespan of the workforce? Any riots?

Here's one of my downtown (as always, click to see in full resolution!) This one is finished ... unlike my earlier posting of a lot of construction. And here is what I call my "CRD" "Central Residential District" It's located right beside the CBD, although if you want you can always BTM/bus/subway/drive there. Besides, with the buildings so high, it looks as tall as the CBD.