Watch BUILD 2014 Live on Channel 9: Don't Miss the Biggest Developer Event of the Year

DEGGANS: Well, I was trading a lot of messages and live tweeting myself last night. And there were lots of people cracking jokes about it online. But I coined a new term for watching this production, which was bored-watching. Despite special effects, like a computer-generated Tinkerbell, and some great production numbers, the two leads just weren't charismatic enough to command that stage. And that three-hour length was like an endurance test. So by the midpoint, people were posting all kinds of odd jokes. And by the end, I saw this post from an account named @sloganagain. And they said, next year, they should just give Meryl Streep a bottle of vodka and the script to "Oklahoma!" and see what she does.

DEGGANS: Well, NBC has preliminary ratings that show about 9.1 million people watched it live Thursday night, which is about half the night of viewership from "The Sound Of Music" from the year before. And now, that's still great Thursday ratings for NBC. And given that the Wall Street Journal reported the network earned up to $400,000 per 30-second advertisement, that's a pretty good sign that they might want to try it again. NBC seems to be trying to build an audience for live musicals. That's partly people who love this stuff and partly people who watch to make fun of it. And as long as they get a healthy rating from those two groups, I don't think they really care all that much why people are watching it.

Watch BUILD 2014 Live on Channel 9

Download Zip: https://cinurl.com/2vIOHw

During dives that are expected to go as deep as 3.7 miles, a sophisticated unmanned submarine, called a remotely operated vehicle, or ROV, will broadcast live video from the seafloor, allowing anyone with Internet access to watch the expedition as it unfolds.

Two men who live in the area were approached by a boy who told them there was a man walking around with a gun. The child pointed out the suspect, who was walking with a woman. The two men approached the suspect and asked if he had a gun. The suspect said no, and he and the woman continued walking. The men continued to follow the suspect and, at one point, the suspect turned and fired multiple shots in their direction. Two homeowners in the area reported the gun shots to police. Officers searched the area for the suspect and the woman to no avail. One of the houses in the area appeared to be hit by a stray bullet. No injuries were reported. The male suspect was described as a Hispanic youth, about 17 years of age, with light skin, thin build, bald, a scruffy appearance, and wearing a red-and-black plaid shirt, black pants, red/black hat, and red shoes. The female was described as a 16-year-old Hispanic, thin build, mid-length black hair, and wearing a purple shirt and light-colored blue jeans.

The app features a 24/7 live stream of your local Spectrum News channel plus access to our on-demand news, sports and weather clips, as well as your Weather on the 1s forecast and comprehensive weather maps, plus our "Report News" feature which lets you send information, pictures and video directly to our newsrooms.

Like our news channel websites, all text and short-form video clips are free to access, but live video and show clips are available exclusively for Spectrum or TWC video subscribers who get one of our news channels on their cable box, and must be accessed with a TWC ID, available here.

A crowd of 2,307 people came out to Jenison Fieldhouse tosee the Top-20 matchup, which aired live on the Big Ten Network and wasselected by the AVCA's Deb Kniffin as a top five matchup to watch this weekend.

The EchoStar 23 satellite is scheduled to lift off atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from historic Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida Thursday at 1:35 a.m. EDT (0535 GMT). You can watch the spaceflight action live at

"[The group recommended]...housing growth with a dual focus of 1) reducing or eliminating growth within existing single family neighborhoods and 2) focusing growth near shopping and services."It's no surprise that the first priority is maintaining the purity of single-family neighborhoods, followed by the dog-whistle mantra of sequestering growth near shopping and services. Translation: NIMBYHow was the composition of the group divided between single family dwellings and multifamily residents? I could guess... .What are these R1 types so afraid of? In my neighborhood, multifamily housing developments routinely coexist cheek by jowl with single-family homes. It's a beautiful, tree-lined, diverse neighborhood as a result.Yet, despite living in and near Downtown, we must drive to shop for basics like everyday clothing and non-premium groceries. Stanford Shopping Center? Forget it. Few of us tend our yards in duds from Wilkes-Bashford and Nieman-Marcus."Smart Growth" is deeply flawed because it is based not on facts, but on ad hoc assumptions. Like, build housing near transit in suburban town such as ours because that's what they are presumed to do in real cities (they don't; they bring the transit to the people via buses). If you build it, will they ride?Do you know what fraction of the residents of our existing multifamily units near Caltrain take the train or bus to work? City hall doggedly declines to find out, but one enterprising resident of a large Cal Ave multifamily edifice right by the station surveyed her complex and reported the outcome to the city council: 1 in 20. Meantime, Middlefield Road is clogged from Willow Road every evening, and in the reverse direction each morning. Go watch.Urban densities and suburban driving necessities are the perfect prescription for the perfect gridlock storm. Which is where "Smart Growth" will inevitably take us.

Building for Smart Water Usage makes perfect sense but watching them build hundreds of single family homes or garden style apartments in the central valley doesn't male sense.People commute 2 times a day, 5 days a week, rest of the car trips, car trips to buy even a cup of coffee. Seen this on a Sunday morning at Starbucks, lined up in sleepwear.How to build raileay suburbs or neighborhoods that will enhance the quality of life. Instead with the commute, traffic and everyone rushing around to get extra time just to enjoy some down time.

Stephen, here is my response to your questions about my post yesterday. It is longer than I'd like but I don't think I will be adding any more later so it covers all my thoughts.You are correct in that my comment about defeating Smart Growth is really "stop growth." I think it unnecessary to state we also need to defeat Dumb Growth and Mediocure Growth. You say 'change is inevitable' which in the big scope of things is true but it does not mean all things must change including localized housing density, land use and quality of life.I understand your three points but disagree in some areas with what I think you imply:1. Yes, Palo Alto is in a good location for access to freeways, public transit, etc. But that does not mean the future should bring the condemnation of thousands of Palo lots to be replaced with high rises to allow many more people to be here and take advantage of the location. I have been here 30 years and have had more than six different offices in SF requiring I be there 4-5 days each week. Today that commute is very painful not matter what you do- and public transit from PA to the Financial District adds 30 plus minutes each way. I now am in a position to choose my business clients and no longer engage with those that would cause me to incur extensive commutes. We all have trade-offs between work and home. Many large tech companies have addressed this by building satellite campuses in other communities like Sacramento, Austin and Portland. Eventually they will also be at capacity and new locations must be found for needed expansion.There is no fundemental right to live and work in Palo Alto or anywhere else I know of. 2. "Locations like downtown let families make fewer non-work trips" But if we are to accommodate everyone who wants that convenience we will need to replace most of downtown with high rises so they can all live here and walk to restaurants. The downtown would be completely transformed. São Paulo is like that and people that can afford to travel from building top to building top by helicopter because transiting on the street is too slow. The logical smart growth future for our downtown will result in a place not likely compatible with what your family and others currently downtown appreciate as your lifestyle.3. The high prices you refer to are I think because of a lot of things- among them location and the community and schools. I listed others in my original post. I can see why developers and property owners downtown would want to promote growth as they now do. There is big money to be made. But for them it's a business -for most of us who live here it is home. That is a big part of the "us versus them" you refer to. I don't begrudge someone an ability to run a business but draw the line when doing so degrades our chosen community and home. Should we allow lumberjacks to cut Palo Alto's neighborhood redwoods because it supports their profession, provides them a living and let's them work close by? After all, there are a number of parks nearby where we can go to see redwoods when these are gone. Absurd example yet that is pretty much the kind of trade off being supported in the quest to shoehorn more people and businesses wanting to be here (with their supporting infrastructure) into Palo Alto and adjacent communities.So I guess it really is down to 'us versus them.' 'Them' being those with an interest in high density development, those who support that so they may live here and quasi governmental agencies with social or other agendas that bargain governmental dollars for buying into 'Smart Growth.'There is a time when choosing to protect a quality of life supercedes accomodation of others' business interests or their desire to have a right to live somewhere they cannot currently afford. I lived in Mountain View when I first moved here after college and never thought I had a right to live in Palo Alto. We bought here when we decided we could afford the prices and although high even for this area did so because the quality of the community made it worthwhile.Perhaps you and I simply have different visions of what version of Palo Alto makes us happy, and perhaps they are mutually compatible-your downtown and my Crescent Park, Lucy Stern, Foothills Park, Bixby Park, etc. But if those visions are not compatible then I'd be foolish to go along with anything that promotes transformation of the Palo Alto I chose and support to something I would never choose. 2ff7e9595c