Examples Of Premise And Conclusion

Can Brooklyn Build a Pedestrian-Friendly Arena at the Atlantic Yards Site?

James’s conclusion is perhaps a bit premature, as Norman Oder has noted at the Atlantic Yards Report , but the basic premise is right: The arena is moving ahead while the rest of the project languishes, and for a while the arena may stand all alone. The primary transportation planning challenge facing the area is how best to move the tens of thousands of people who will want to watch a basketball game or concert to and from the site in a way that is safe, sustainable and appropriate to an urban environment.

The fundamentals for a smart solution are there: The Atlantic/Pacific hub makes the area better-served by transit than almost anywhere else in the United States. Right now, though, the picture is more mixed. The state recently released its transportation plan for the arena, a plan largely in line with past promises from both the Empire State Development Corporation and the developer Forest City Ratner, which is intended to mitigate the increased traffic that the crowds heading to an arena event will bring to the surrounding neighborhoods. Many of the features, like free subway fares for certain Nets ticket holders and 400 secure bike parking spaces, will help make the Barclays Center more transit-oriented and bike and pedestrian-friendly.

But the developer is planning to build an 1,100-space surface parking lot , killing street life and inducing driving. And with some of the borough’s deadliest streets left in place as enormous traffic arteries, walking and cycling will remain overly dangerous, potentially keeping features like a temporary plaza from being much more than a hard-to-reach traffic island.

Between developer Forest City Ratner, the Empire State Development Corporation and the city government, the capacity exists to make the Barclays Center a standard-setting example for urban arenas around the country, if only they have the will. At a public meeting tonight sponsored by several electeds and neighborhood groups, leading local architects and planners will lead a workshop to envision alternatives to the surface parking lots currently planned for the site.

What are the options? Streetsblog is going to explore how the transportation mix serving the new arena can emphasize transit, biking, and walking, creating the conditions for a quality pedestrian environment. First, we’re taking a look at what some other urban stadiums are doing to promote sustainable transportation, and then in a later post we’ll see what top planners think needs to happen to make this arena work for Brooklyn.

More Miracle Codswallop (Part 2)

Indeed, for highly anomalous events one uses the term “perceived” because as Immanuel Kant clearly showed ( ‘A Critique of Pure Reason’ ) no human mind is privy to direct reality. All reality is filtered through the brain’s internal architecture, optics, media and processes. Thus, when we observe the “sky” it isn’t really blue! That PERCEIVED color is a result of our eyes accepting a particular narrow spectrum of visible light (at about 589 nm) which when scattered via air molecules APPEARS blue! Thus, all events are really perceived events! What can eventually perhaps make them real or in the category of objective events? Only stringent scientific investigation with controls applied. (This also shows whether the Pharisees accepted them or not is neither here nor there. They saw the events as evil or Satan originated, merely disclosing no uniform interpretation existed.) Not true! Logically, in fact, a non-sequitur. To BE classified as an objectively real event, a miracle must at least possess the possibility for its replication. Otherwise, one must concede all (or most) alleged (previously) known miracles have expiry dates (like raising the dead, walking on water etc.) and can never occur again. But if that is so it means that from about 2,000 years ago ALL miracles ceased! But this undermines the overall miracle claim by asserting ALL exist only ex post facto. If only ex post facto in existence, then no rigorous approach is EVER possible, so the claimant is asserting these events (though they violated natural laws) can never ever be validated or verified, or falsified. If this is so, then “miracle” can’t ever exist as an objective claim (i.e. open to scientific investigation) only as a subjective belief in a retrospective happening reported in the person’s own bible – based on his perceptions of witnesses’ perceptions in said book! Then, we are merely being asked to bestow gravitas on balderdash! Again also, asserting a distinction between miracles and miracle reports is not a strawman! It’s a refinement of the definition to take into account that any claimed “supernatural’ interjection might actually be supra-phyical. (And up to now no believer has been able to differentiate between the two) But this merely validates my previous point that if miracles CAN still occur, they cannot be “one offs” in the distant past.

Nursing theorists and their work

Barron's GMAT

A concise introduction to logic

How to prepare for the graduate management admission test, Barron's GMAT

Arguing well