Re: Good to hear that... -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sat 2003-09-20 22:15:04
Author: Redeye
Subject: Re: Good to hear that...
In reply to: arendt 's message, "Re: Good to hear that..." on Sat 2003-09-20 13:56:59

First, the XLS can be found here: http://leftist.i8.com/SL.xls

Second, are the dashed lines state borders, too? In other words, is Denver metro in the same state as SLC metro? And more importantly, is Trans-Pecos Texas in the same state as Albuquerque?

Third, some of the borders just don't make sense. The border between the Bay Area and Sacramento puts some of the Bay Area in Sacramento state, and passes right thru Fresno. Chicago really doesn't need access to the Mississippi. Splitting Boston metro between two states doesn't make any sense - especially given the connection between lower and upper New England; in this case, I think that upper New England and Western Massachusetts should be one state and then that Boston metro should be a single state. In PA and NY the Appalachians aren't very high, so it shouldn't be a problem to have states pass them - and extending NYC and Philadelphia states up to the Appalachians will run you into cultural and political problems.

Fourth, you can reduce the number of states, methinks. There's no need for 48 states; the number can be cut down to something in the 30s, which at the same time will allow some culturally contingent areas to be in one state.

Fifth, which are the two cities in the states east of the Appalachians northeast to Atlanta? If they're Charlotte and Raleigh then it makes more cultural sense to put them together and give them an access to the Atlantic Ocean and to create an Appalachia state out of western North Carolina and the southeastern portions of already overextended Cincinnati and Columbus states.

Sixth, a few unrelated thoughts about this:
- Spokane and Boise states should be merged
- Rapid City state should be split: its western part should merge with Spokane-Boise and its eastern part should merge with Omaha (or with Minneapolis)
- Gulf Coast Florida should be split: its cape portion should merge with Atlantic Florida and its panhandle portion should merge with either Atlanta or New Orleans
- Birmingham is very close to the three-way border between Atlanta, Memphis, and New Orleans, so I think that the New Orleans border should be shifted southward and that Memphis state should expand eastward so that it clearly includes Birmingham

Finally, the best free hosting for images is Imagestation because it gives unlimited space; the best free hosting for regular files is, I suspect, 50megs, although I haven't checked freewebservers yet.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]