Looks like they're being evacuated or crossing a border illegally.

The roads have a capacity.
~15 feet per car.

100 feet of road will fit about 6 or 7 cars, bumper to bumper.
Alternatively, 100 cars will require 1500 feet of distance to fit.

If a driver keeps 30 feet in front of him, at all times, even when stopped in traffic, then that takes the total per-car size up to 45 feet.
100 feet of road now fits 2 cars.
100 cars now require 4500 feet of distance to fit.

The greater the distance kept between cars, the bigger the strain on road capacity, and the farther back the traffic jam will stretch.



Traffic jams in massive commuter areas do not exist because people are driving too close.

They exist because the rate of people entering the highway exceeds the rate of people exiting the highway, for a long enough duration that the highway 'runs out of room' to fit the cars.

You can widen the roads to increase capacity, so the traffic jam doesn't go as far back.
You can increase highway speed limits, so that people can attempt to 'evacuate' the highway faster.

(Travel-capacity in terms of cars-per-second of any given section of road, is 'cars-per-second-per-lane x number-of-lanes'. Increasing either factor will improve travel.)

...But you can't eliminate the jam.

The rate of 'highway exit' is determined by the number of exits, and the capacity of the exit roads to absorb traffic from the highway.

When people exit from a highway, they usually go into local traffic, and are met by a light within 100 feet.
Between the lights, and other cars looking for parking spots, pedestrians, etc, local traffic is a dog.

Highway traffic can't diffuse out of the exits fast enough, and the traffic backs up on the exit ramps, and then backs up onto the highway. Once the traffic backs up onto the highway, exiting traffic consumes a lane for queuing, which forms a choke.


Basically, to avoid a jam, the rate of people entering the highway can not exceed the maximum possible rate of people exiting and diffusing into the destination city.

Because 'everyone goes to work at once', and local traffic is not geared to rapidly absorb exiting traffic, the jams are unavoidable.

Driving with a massive space in front, refusing to fill in the gap, only uses up the highway's buffering capacity more quickly.
That leads to the 'complete' jam happening sooner, where traffic is queued all the way from the destination, all down the highway, and onto the feeder roads miles away, blocking local traffic elsewhere.




IMO, if people really care abut stopping traffic jams, they should put a commuter parking lot at every exit at major commuter areas.

When you exit off of the highway, you would immediately wind your way through a parking lot, and at the other end of the lot you would exit into local traffic.

The parking lot acts as a buffer, allowing the highway exit lane to not get backed up, and prevents the queue from building up onto the highway.

That way the traffic on the highway can travel without chokes.

Although, this would just move the "parking lot" occurring on the highway, into a literal parking lot. You'd still be stuck waiting a while, as the rate of people exiting the parking lot into local traffic would still be limited by the rate at which local traffic can absorb the highway traffic.

Basically, to have literally no waiting, the city streets absorbing exiting highway traffic need the same uninterrupted cumulative bandwidth as the highway.

In the end, if you want to fix highway traffic jams, fix city streets.




You can make the argument that keeping more space in front will make people more comfortable with driving faster, and traffic will move faster.
But, that faster moving traffic will merely more quickly arrive at the same clogged exit, and queue with the same other cars waiting to get onto the local roads.

-scheherazade

Flooding and evacuating ballast tanks around a neutral buoyancy and the shape of the hull. He goes like half the speed a diver can swim at, so there's not a lot fins would do to help anyway. Probably slow him down even further due to drag, to be quite honest.

I would evacuate.

Hey bremnet-Been watching this one closely as well-(never been to guns.com before, first hit on google search for "Canada gun confiscation")

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/29/royal-canadian-mounted-police-confiscate-guns-from-town-residents-during-flood-video/

Apparently residents of High River in Alberta will return to their homes after having to evacuate due to floods and find all their firearms (registered and legal) have been confiscated by the RCMP-

Don't know if this is the video I watched below, but the red-jack-boots are certainly clueless as to how to carry-on a reasonable conversation on the matter with very reasonable and practical residents-Cops are cops are cops wherever you are, dutiful lap-soldiers of bullshit-gone-wild government.

Everyone is speculating about what the police knew and when. What we do know is they did not know, or even have any evidence that they had returned to Boston after the shootout, but the description claims these searches happened there too.
As for evacuation at gunpoint, yes, it's possible he had moved into a nearby home, but not at all possible that he had morphed into a 12 year old child or woman, so holding them at gunpoint is ridiculous.
It will likely only be true "public record" if there are lawsuits that force the police to give specific reasons for each and every entry.

I agree that it should not be simple. But you are speculating a great deal as to what the police knew, and when they knew it. The"total picture" of police knowledge won't be known until several things play out in court. It will be public record and it can be debated then.

I disagree about the gunpoint evacuation thing. If they suspect he was in a boat, isn't it possible that he moved since police received that information? Couldn't he be in a house now? Seems reasonable to use caution given what his actions were throughout this event. I wouldn't like being pulled out of my house at gunpoint either, but I wouldn't think the police were doing it just to be dicks.

There is a reason it's not 'that simple', it's supposed to be difficult for the powers that be to find a reason to intrude on your 'castle', even when they're scared.
I am hopeful that at least SOME will force them to articulate their specific reason for 'exigent circumstances' and hold their feet to the fire when they don't have one in most cases. In the specific instances where they knew or thought they knew where the suspect was (not when they had no idea) it made sense to evacuate surrounding houses, but not at gunpoint, and there was no reason whatsoever for the police to enter and search the home(s) when they suspected the suspect was trapped and totally surrounded in a neighbors yard, just none.
In the instances alluded to in the description, they'll have a hard time making the case for imminent danger or destruction of evidence, when they didn't know where he was or what he was doing they couldn't possibly have had evidence of either.

Back in shop class, when I was about, oh, 12, we were doing some metalworks that involved heating things up with a propane torch. Now some kids noticed a thin metal rod will heat up to a glow quite quickly and looks kinda neat if you wave it around fast. The teacher being at his desk at the time (he was a bit of a dick, to be honest), we spent a good while waving glowing hot metal bits around the propane tank.

The valve on the tank must have been faulty, because suddenly the top of the tank was on flames. You wouldn't believe how fast a room full of 12-year-olds evacuates itself when an explosion seems imminent. Some kids went out the door, others went out the window (we were in a basement with a window right at ground level) and some simply hid behind a sturdy desk far away from the flaming tank.

Our teacher wasn't quite disinterested enough not to notice the ruckus and went in to extinguish the fire. First he tried to stamp the flames out with his shoe, managing mainly to re-arrange the patterning of his soles, and then got a fire-extinguishing glove which did the job.

As I said, this teacher was something of an asshole, seeming to get his kicks from berating and belittling the kids he was teaching, but this time what followed was a very sober and concise lesson on fire safety. Everyone was left with the feeling we'd all gotten very lucky, and there was this worldess concensus that it'd really be best for all concerned if no-one said a word about what had happened, ever.

Ah, that's pretty clever. It does, however, look massively more expensive than just collapsing the building, probably including the cost of cleaning up any collateral mess or damage. Presumably it's cost effective here though, so what do I know (I imagine, for instance, if you were collapsing that building, you would have to evacuate the nearby buildings for several days around the actual collapse, which could be really expensive in lost business).

Anyways, this is a step closer to Voltron coming, picking up the building, and just hurling it into space to be swallowed by the sun, and I'm all for that bright future.

A few houses away from me a guy held some of his family hostage with an automatic weapon and eventually shot himself. Not only did I not record it but I slept through the helicopters circling my house for hours. When I finally got out of bed and went to lunch I had to ask the officers at the end of my street what had happened because they were blocking my way.

Also apparently they had evacuated my neighborhood, but I never answered the door.

There will be a CCW in the building, and chances are they wont be in the room where it starts. They can start an evacuation, gather their wits, and MAYBE try to stop the shooter. You have this gun lust fantasy that defies reality. No one wants to die, except maybe the shooter. And 5 gets me 10 you live in an urban area.

Having worked in the adult industry as an editor, photographer and videographer for several years I can say that most porn shoots are not even remotely like what Ms. Lubben describes. BUT that is not to say, that as with all industries, there are small unprofessional companies that crop up that don’t follow industry guidelines and ethics.

The company I worked for did fetish porn, so slapping, choking and inflicting pain were all a part of the days work. The actors that perform in these videos are professionals who have very clear guidelines as to what they will and won’t do, those guidelines are in writing with the contract signed by them prior to shooting and are gone over again in a interview prior to shooting the scene which are recorded on camera. All professional production companies work with talent agencies who are familiar with what scenes their actors are willing to perform in and also have a clear list of their artists “hard no’s”. Again, unprofessional agents and companies will not follow these guidelines.

Porn is not mostly shot at private locations as Ms. Lubben asserts in the video, it’s shot either on sound stages or at locations that are rented from private owners and permitted with the city for shooting a film. Here again, unprofessional companies will slide past these regulations and shoot rogue.

Bodily fluids?! Yes, of course, it’s sex. All the fluids she spoke of are part of sexual contact and rightfully so are part of the shoots. Again a professional company is prepared to clean up and deal with this. If anal work is part of the shoot, actors are given guidelines, if they are not already familiar with them, on how to prepare themselves for this kind of a shoot, including dietary info and a bowel evacuation schedule prior to shooting.

Up to date health reports are verified prior to starting work, if you aren’t compliant, no shoot. PERIOD. People’s lives and welfare are at stake and it’s taken very seriously.

My personal take on the video shown here is that Ms. Lubben has a very personal agenda, her experience in the industry was not a good one and it seems to fall under working for unprofessional companies. The video “Porn Set” used to illustrate her points in her speech shows actors who obviously had major issues with the shoots they were working on and who should have left them immediately. Also from the video shown it looked like some of the actors were either high or drunk. The use of drugs and alcohol on set is a huge NO at any professional shoot; Ms. Lubben’s experience in the industry again seems to fall foul of that. I personally have turned away actors (in the kindest way possible) who were visibly intoxicated showing up for to work. It’s incredibly unsafe as with any work place to perform impaired.

How to solve these problems? Regulation is a good start, but also a sticky area (no pun intended) for gov’t to get involved in. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry with little to no regulation. BUT as you begin to regulate, you legitimize the actions of porn, which in the simplest of terms is prostitution, and with that word politicians start to turn and run. Should gov’t be involved? I for one think in the long run it should be, to protect the workers health and safety and weed out the unprofessional elements of the porn industry, and who knows eventually professionalize the sex industry all together.