david1314

EDIT: Please disregard the 2009 shown on the pictures. These are actually 2010--*sigh* only three days into the year and I'm already making mistakes. The nation of Pacific Columbia lies between Alaska and Canada on the Northern Pacific Coast. It's boarders resulted from the unsettled boarders between Russia's claim to Alaska and the UK's claim to Canada. It is a commonwealth nation with a republican form of government. As an ally of the British and Americans during World War II, the nation quickly industrialized to meet the needs of the war. This effort was aided by increasing mineral & fossil fuel discoveries in the nation's North. The nation's current capital, New Dover, is located deep within the mountains for defense--a relic of 19th century diplomacy. As a result, the capital has proven ineffective, with government seeking warmer quarters in their home districts during winter. The capital is occupied by government only during the summer months. During winter the organs of government disperse with the various cabinet ministers to what became satirically called "home offices"--an ineffective web of poorly marked offices and frequently misdirected correspondence. The citizens thought it normal for their business to be lost at least one time at take 2-3 years to resolve. While May 1st was an official state holiday of May Day, the 2nd was a defacto holiday when the citizens left work to submit (or resubmit) government business (while New Dover was easily accessible during most of April most years, May was considered the first month when the government was reliably "in session"). During the Summer of 1955 the government met in New Dover to address the growing calls from the public (and elected an appointed government officials) to move the capital to a more effective location. Three cities were nominated to candidacy, one was Kearney, the northern boom city who's population had expanded to over 100,000 after the discovery of it's rich resources. The other two cities were located in the only other truly urban center of the nation--the rest of the nation being far too mountainous for any large contiguous urban area. Lydian, with a population of about 40,000, is located at the mouth of the Lydian River and is already the defacto transportation hub of the nation. Finally, Reyesville (with about 80,000 people), just 20 miles from Lydian, was the larger of the two southern urban areas. The debate continued, and on October 1, 1955 the government passed the act to establish a new capital within 10 years. The act additionally created the first permanent offices outside of New Dover--the Office of the New Capitol (ONC) was established in Lydian, charged with organizing, facilitating, and overseeing the transfer of the capital. Little was accomplished in the immediate years following act mandating the move of government. The delegates with the large population of Kearney were digging in, and no 50% could decide on the new capital location. The boom population of Kearney was relatively unfamiliar with the locale when compared to the residents of the longer established southern cities, and many had in fact moved from the south. After two of the worst winters on record consecutively that blanketed Kearney and shut down access for nearly a month each year, the government held an "emergency meeting" in Lydian and after establishing quorum by just 1 member of parliament, voted to dissolve itself. During the new elections, the population of Kearney voted out most of their members of parliament who had been blocking the move to the south, in what became known as the February Revolt (of 1960). Finally, on May 1, 1960, the government eliminated Kearney from candidacy. Within weeks it became clear that the larger city of Reyesville would win the vote. In the last act of Parliament in the 1960 session, the government was to move to Reyesville. The final hurdle to moving the government would be accepting the annex of a federal district by the local populations of Reyesville and the surrounding cities who would be affected by the move. A brief overview of the capital inherited by the government of Pacific Columbia (circa 1961): Overview - Reyesville in 1961 Transit View - Reyesville in 1961 Pictures overview - a guide showing where the pictures below are located: 01 - Downtown Reyesville - Central Reyesville - the Columbia State Bank building can bee seen to the right: 02 - Reyesville Waterfron - The city of Reyesville has since grown up from its beginings as a fishing village, but Fishermans Village is still a busy neighborhood 03 - The "Old" Waterfront - The "Old" Waterfront has some of the city's oldest mid-rise buildings. Though riverboats never served Reyesville, an old riverboat now serves as a restaurant and club on the oldest stretch. 04 - Fishermans Warf - a small stretch of waterfront that offers some housing and the last remaining fisherman's slips 05 - The Upper Waterfront - The original settlers in Reyesville just moved up the Reyes River as the peninsula filled with people. The riverfront is was always a thoroughfare and provides prime land for both residents and businesses 06 - The Upper Waterfront - Another view--slightly downriver-- showing the most commercial stretch of the upper water front. East Reyes can be seen where the grid turns 45 degrees 07 - East Reyes & "The Commons" - "The commons", as they are referred to, is an area of land in the center of town owned by two philanthropists who allowed for common use of the land. The city has expressed interest in purchasing this land to turn into a permanent park.East Reyes is the neighborhood that sprung up between "The commons" and the Riverfront after both Downtown & Uptown were built in. 08 - Station - Station is the newest neighborhood in Reyesville. It is built up around the terminus station that was built on the edge of town. While the track continues on into Uptown and even Downtown on Broadway, it was deemed to costly to demolish an area to build a station in the center of town. Station is one of the primary industrial districts in town 09 - North Broadway and The Commons - A small neighborhood is found nestled between "The Commons", Downtown, Uptown, and the Pacific. Broadway is a very busy street 10 - North Broadway - A Closeup 11 - Gateshead Heights - Gateshead is a small fort that protected the two passes between Reyesville and Lydian. Gateshead Heights is a small weigh-station that was built between them. The rail junction connects to Reyesville Station to the West, the port of So'Eado to the south, and Lydian to the East. No passenger service goes south, and all traffic shares a single rail between Lydian and Gateshead Heights 12 - Gateshead Ranches - As the terrain becomes too dry and rocky to be farmed, sheep ranchers take over. A number of paths traverse Gateshead Ridge eventually leading to the historic fort 13 - The Gateshead - The Gateshead is the small fort overlooking both passes in and out of Reyesville. It is still manned daily by the military, but the soldiers on guard do more guide work than look-out. Flocks of sheep can be seen in the foreground 14 - Corlottine River - The Corlottine River flows to the Southeast of town 15 - So'Eado Overview - The area of So'Eado (a contraction of South Eastern Docks) is seen below. Reyesville-So'Eado International Aiport uses most of the land currently, though part of the historic port is still present on the southern side. The Port is divided into 4 doc areas (From right to left): Navy Docs, Old So'Eado, Point Docs, and Victory Docs. The Victory Docs are the newest having just been completed during WWII 16 - Reyesville-So'Eado International Terminal - The terminal serves mostly prop aircraft to Montreal, Chicago, New York, LA, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver, and Seattle. The brand new jetbridge can be seen hosing a 707 17 - Navy Docs - The Navy Docs are the "flagship" docs for the nation's Navy. It is where the formal offices of the Admiral are located--Cruisers are the largest vessels in the fleet. The Navy's pride and joy, a fleet of brand new submarines can often be seen in port ===================== By 1961, the ONC had a new mandate to begin overseeing the planning of the capital. They were charged with representing the federal government to the cities and towns and creating an omnibus resolution to bring on the nation, as well as the cities of Reyesville and its neighbors.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus So, a person draws a gun at the fight. There was obviously no firing or clear danger of it being fired. I don't really care about pulling a gun (as long as it isn't fired or threats are conducted), but this puts into question his level-headedness as a detective, and his merits for the job should be reconsidered. quote> What is pulling a gun if not a threat? Unless the un-holstering could be shown to have no actual link to the snowball fight, I don't see how this is anything but a threat. He certainly wasn't showing it off or instilling calm in a crowd. It looks as though his intent in pulling the weapon was to say "stop because my weapon is stronger than your snowball". I'll grant you that he has left open to question the actual escalation of events that may have transpired (fortunately having not fired), but I don't see how this situation is any less severe than if the crowd immediately turned on him and pelted him with snowballs until the situation spiraled out of control. The fact is, the officer used threatening actions to illicit a response from the crowd while FAILING to consider the ramifications of his actions. Remember this person is a supposed professional who is trained in the judicious application of a weapon. When his threat leads to uncertainty that may culminate in violence, he should not be off the hook by virtue of our 'luck' that nothing escalated.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body He should be severely disciplined. In fact, thinking about it, it should be turned over to IA for a complete investigation of this officer's record and past conduct.quote> Originally posted by: david1314 DC...should feel unlucky that an 'investigation' is where meaningful response to this incident will end and the downplay will begin.quote> *whistling* Perhaps something a little beyond internal affairs would be more sever. It might even cross into the realm of discipline.

I've often thought the statement "If you give a policeman a pistol..." is very similar to "If you give a moose a muffin..." or "If you give a mouse a cookie..." It seems there is no end to the ways police will abuse their weapons. Be they lethal tasers, lethal guns, or lethal bludgeons. I fear many in the DC area will feel "lucky" they were not shot, but they should feel unlucky that an 'investigation' is where meaningful response to this incident will end and the cover up/downplay will begin.

Josh6: The circular building you're referring to is the SYM Prod Ympyratalo by prepo. It's available here: https://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=16541

Awesome. Thanks. Any thoughts on the F-4? I didn't see that one in the list.

I like the military airport. here did you find all the military planes. In particular, the P-51 and F-4 would be very useful to me.

It's not a driver issue. I'm not sure why people are steering you this way. I would guess you have an emulator or anti-virus program running. For the former, kill it on the "processes" tab of the task manager if a simple exit out isn't working (if you don't understand this, it probably doesn't apply, go to the next sentence). For the latter, disable it.

I wouldn't call this a bug or technical issue. SC4 is a city simulator after all. Traffic lights behave in game just as their real life counterparts do (and as their name suggests): they cause traffic.

The method has been employed previously with industrial and commercial jobs in the same lot. But I think the game may only recognizes the last exemplar loaded so it would actually only fill one type of jobs (I think it is dependent on the order in which the exemplars are added to the file). There is actually nothing wrong with applying the R and CS/CO exemplars to a plopable building except for the known abandonment bugs with plopped R buildings. The biggest problem for growables is the exemplars in each .sc4desc file. If it has a CS property, it is excluded from selection by lots for R, and likewise if it has the R property, it is excluded from commercial lots. I'm sure this would just be one "If, Then" statement being removed from the line of the programming to permit it, but that's not possible for obvious reasons and there would be problems with how the game handles it. The game's algorithms could not handle it because SC4 is essentially a big path finder and image layering program with a few economy bells and whistles to round out a full game (I suspect a large number of CJers do not employ the latter portion of the game essentially using a 'sandbox' mode). With jobs and residents in the same building, 100% of residents or low wealth jobs (the lesser of the two) would be filled entirely by people within the building. This would play havoc with the demand and desirability.

Originally posted by: Benedict Paletexan's Vicivitas is here. There is also a link at the bottom of that page to his 3rd cj, Athenee. I just remembered that I suggested 'Constantine' to him for the name of the river. As far as I recall, Carthage was first, followed by Vicivitas then Athenee. quote> I found vicivitas from the link on his page (obviously I did not remember the name). Was paletexan a member at ST? And did he ever have his stuff on ST? I'm really wondering who was first. I know I didn't get into looking at CJs until like early 2006 just because all the first ones I remember were from users who joined up to that point. The first one I remember thinking it was noteworthy was EJC's Paris when I discovered that SC wasn't eternally doomed by it's grid. As I recall, you could go days or a week without a post on the CJ and it would still hit the first page. I'm not sure there were many CJs before that point. It wasn't until well after the BAT that CJs were established as a facet of the community. And the BAT came out in Feb. 2004. So I think we're only dealing with maybe 5 years of history at ST if that. Edit: I did a search on google for "Sim City Journal" and limited the search to 01/01/03 to 12/30/05. The earliest journal per se that I found was one from 07/05 here http://simcityforum.com/journal.php?do=showjournal&j=10... though I think the term "journal" is pretty specific to ST (you don't find 'journal' anywhere on Carthage's site for example). So that probably means that early 2005 is when the first ones started cropping up here...does anyone remember anything earlier? I forget how, but you should be able to search the google cache with a similar date-range limiting the site to simtropolis to fairly accurately get the info.

Hmmmm...Carthage was not the one I remembered and described above. That was Vicivitas by the same author. It really does make me wonder about the origins of CJs here at ST.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Good question. I have often wondered that myself. I have read that the earliest vestiges of city journaling was something called Carthage, which had its own website, and as such was not part of ST. I am not aware of ST's first city journal. quote> Carthage! I couldn't remember the name of it. But that is correct! I remember it predated rush-hour because the highways he used just turned and paralleled each other where they 'T'ed. I remember finding it about a month before RushHour came out and the two combined rekindled my love of SC4 (for a good long time I might add There probably wasn't a first per se at Simtrop. The concept had developed before there was a CJ section of the forums. There were a number of tutorial / concept / eye candy cities that sort of evolved into the CJ concept. So my foggy memory recalls. Edit: I don't know if CJs started that late, but Aleking's eyecandy may have been one of the earliest. Did frogface have one? He may have been first.

Wow, I've been here a day less than Duke and a day more than Beebs. That puts me soundly in the 6 year club. (How many in this club are still active AND still play the game?) Just had a brief hiatus from the game that lasted from when I got my new comp to when I finally went through and downloaded the plethora of content required for me to consider the game playable.

Wow, so having played SC4 for about 7 years, I spent only about $70 on it in total with Rush Hour. I have a city simulator that can....(I don't know where to begin, and this needs no elaboration). This is without a doubt one of the best purchases I have made in terms of enjoyment for the buck. Cities XL with PlanetOffer, assuming it has the same longevity as SC4, would cost for 6 years (72 months) about $540. I get some spiffy graphics, and a long-overdue gridless game play but an otherwise stripped down city. The breaks I take from SC4 for months at a time after it bores me would likely spell doom for my hard effort in Cites XL. And finally, I don't consider city simulating to be the most social activity (for me it is perhaps the most antisocial, in fact) so I don't want to be forced into an online environment when I'm wanting to play. I think this one is a 'pass' until what is actually gained by the rather steep purchase price is a bit more clear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7912668.stm <--- The BBC story on Wendy Richards Back in February I guess.

Wow, first Wendy Richards and now her. Kryptowhite, seriously...we could start one for just "Are you being serverd"

It's certainly fake. The premise is entirely real. Insurance companies regularly threaten criminal complaints to avoid paying claims. But the claim would never have been paid because the insurance company would push it to this point well before they were forced in court to pay. If this were claimed, the insurance company would deny the claim and point out that Arson is not a coverd cause of loss and that the insured would be best to take his losses without going to jail or paying a criminal fine. An underwriter I work with in insurance once saw a claim where payment on loss of income for diamond theft was based on tax records which showed a significantly smaller income than what was claimed (the jeweler was perported to have mob-ties). The insured threatened to sue, and the insurance company threatened to take it to the IRS. Naturally, the insurance company won.

Originally posted by: davidaiow Or perhaps my grasp of politics (which isn't great I admit) is way off.quote> Originally posted by: davidaiow You and David have some of the stupidist views.quote> ...dignified... Care to elaborate, or were you speaking in third person? It is difficult to defend a view without knowing what to defend.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy If you actually read the articles you will see the published list is for a 5 month period. Older and still existing lists remain quote> If it's a 5 month period, maybe your government should spend less time making (and then justifying) it's international gaffs and more time "protecting" it's citizenry...whatever deluded form this protection takes. Originally posted by: belfastuniguy What ensures this is not a personal vendetta against some perceived wrong of someone in the UK foreign ministry? quote> Becuase no one individual determines who is added to the list. Consultation occurs with the Home Office, UK Police forces and of course the Office of the Prime Minister.quote> And you know this how? I thought the FOI request was because this information, and thus the descision making process behind it, was not readily available in the public domain. I call foul.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyEntering the United Kingdom is not a universal right and can be restricted or revoked at any point., just as other governments do.quote> For the love of god! Stop saying that. No one disputes that....er....I don't dispute that. Originally posted by: belfastuniguyThe UK has Freedom of Information laws, this list was published after such a request.quote>So, FOI requests must be released in press conference by the HS? Originally posted by: belfastuniguyThe 6 names that were not released are related to terrorism and they weren't released to ensure those individuals are not aware our government is monitoring them.quote> So where were the names of all the others. They have been singled out publicly as 'least wanted'. Not as criminally precluded, or formerly denied entry, they have been arbitrarily singled out. The list should have included THOUSANDS of people who meet and exceed the levels of extremism of some of the people included on the list. What ensures this is not a personal vendetta against some perceived wrong of someone in the UK foreign ministry? At best this is a very embarasing moment in politics for the UK. At worst, it is a libelous attack on individuals in foreign nations for which the UK should and likely will be liable. Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote david1314 Actually freedom of expression is just as important among British people as amongst Americans. quote> I missed this. No, it's not. Go tell a police man to "f*** off". I'll do the same. We'll see who's back tonight to make a post about it. Both on an individual level and on a judicial level, free speech is more important in the US.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy He was placed on a banning list because it is believed if he came to the UK he would breach the laws of the United Kingdom. There is nothing libellous about that. The United Kingdom has incredibly strict Hate Crime and Incitement to Hate legislation. He has been openly criticised in the United States for his views, sacked by his television company for his views. I fail to see how he has a case against the United Kingdom and its Government. He was not personally named by the Home Secretary and nothing was said about him, his name was simply published on a list that detailed those persons that have been banned from entering the country. He has no case and he knows it.quote> Again: Yes, he was on a banned list (ok), it was published (not ok). It is the out-of-the-way effort of making it public that makes it libelous. The UK make have incredibly strict hate crime laws, but no crime is alleged to have been committed. This is a government actively seeking a citizen (residing in his home nation no less) to maliciously attack without provocation. He has not committed a crime in the US and has not committed what would be a crime in the UK. It is unjustifyable. Most of the list. While I frankly agree with the bannings and the publishing in general, I find the UK's overt sanction and endorsement of the release of the information to be incredibly improper. Where is the discression of old when this stuff was 'leaked' to the press? There were far more effective ways of getting out the message without such a selective process of branding. They only released PART of the list. The whole thing looks like they fully planned to leak the list and the person on top couldn't hold their toungue long enough for the plan to come to fruition. A very embarasing moment of an arbitrary attempt at "justice".

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Originally posted by: david1314 Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote> Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it. And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will. quote> No....they didn't It was published in the UK....not America. International media reported on it, he found out, or was informed by the British Government. quote> The venue of publishing is not important, it's is where the libel is deemed to take place. No American court could reasonably find that it was not the Home Sec.'s intention to spread the "naming and shaming" to the US. Quite simply, the HS made it clear it was her intention to libel ("shame" was her word) in another nation. That's an actionable tort in the US. The applicable doctrine here would be: Under the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity, a State or State instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements.quote> Yes, but they do not have the right to libel someone in another nation by publishing it. And unlike the dutch who will not stand by their people making offensive speech, America will.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Bannng someone from entering the country because the government doesn't like some things he's been saying. quote> teehee....you'd think they'd of remember'd what happened last time they tried to single out Americans for unpopular speech. Looks like the UK is about to get a(nother) lesson in soveriegnty. Quite an embarasing track record though for a nation at the center of enlightenment theory.