New York Computerizes its Subway System

Iphtashu Fitz writes "New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority launched it's first fully computer controlled subway line this month. The `L' Line of the MTA that connects the southern part of Manhattan with Brooklyn was picked for this pilot program because of its relatively short length and the fact that it doesn't share tracks with any other lines. Trains on this line no longer have conductors on board, and only a single driver in the front to monitor all the systems. What's the big deal, you may ask? After all, cities like San Francisco and Paris already have computerized subway lines. Well, having recently celebrated its 100th anniversary the MTA is one of the oldest subway systems in the United States, and one of the largest in the world. If all goes well, the MTA will continue to expand automated service to the rest of the subway system over the next 20 years. But just how safe and secure will these new automated lines be? The radio links that provide data communication between the trains and the control center are encrypted, but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?"

Comments

Funny you bring up Japan

[Dancin_Santa]

Japan's rail systems are a fairly well-done hybrid of computerization and old-fashioned human eyes. The biggest problems down over there have been failures due to catastrophic geologic and meteorological events. Add to that that the train system employees are usually well-trained, and you have a pretty well done system.

It's funny you mention about the atomic bombs. Japan, though certainly not 100% over the incident, has put it behind themselves and tried to get along with the U.S. On the other hand, China and Korea can't let go what happened almost 70 years ago (20 years earlier than the bombs) and are rioting and staging protests against Japan's "whitewashing" of history.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[AvitarX]

I guess it pays to make sure you put friendly leaders in charge after a military action.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[The Nerd Wonder]

No, the problem is that Japan's foreign policy largely ignores basically all the atrocities that happened during WWII. Since China bore the brunt of these, it's only natural that they're pissed that Japan refuses to apologize.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[Scumbag Tracker]

> On the other hand, China and Korea can't let go what happened almost 70 years ago (20 years earlier than the bombs) and are rioting and staging protests against Japan's "whitewashing" of history.

I used to think the way you do as well, before I actually moved to Japan and have seen the way the LDP party continues to piss off their Asian neighbours (island disputes -- not just disputing the land, but also doing things like issuing postal stamps showing the disputed lands with Japanese names, Yasukuni shrine visits, textbook omissions, attempts to remilitarize, etc. ad nauseum. Not to mention the fact that while Germany has apologized for its wartime atrocities, Japan has played the victim mentality card.

Maybe some day the LDP will be booted out of the power they have held onto for decades and things will change, but I am not holding my breath.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[spike hay]

Hundreds of thousands were being killed every month by the Japanese occupation. Such bombing brought the war to an end *years* more quickly that a bombing campaign that only targeted military facilities, thus saving thousands of lives.

Do a google for "Operation Olympic" and see how necessary Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[stfvon007]

should Japan apologize to the US for pearl harbor?
Look at the incident from all sides, not just your own. It probably wont make you agree with their point of view, but it will help you understand it.

Re:Funny you bring up Japan

[fijimf]

Actually, you've got it quite backwards. The Potsdam Declaration (July 26) was quite clear:

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

It was rejected by the government of Japan, who hoped that a costly invasion of the home islands would allow them to negotiate a surrender. On August 6th Hiroshoma was bombed, indicating that 'prompt and utter destruction' was not merely bluster. August 8th Russia declared war on Japan. August 9th Nagasaki was bombed. August 13th the emporer signalled for Japanese forces to surrender.

Re:Cracker schmackers

[tedhiltonhead]

2005 will be the 50th of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Um.... 1955??

Sixtieth Anniversary

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, August sixth and ninth 2005 will mark the sixtieth anniversaries of the tragedies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hopefully, this year will be the year the United States finally formally apologizes.

Re:Sixtieth Anniversary

[Malor]

Expecting an apology from the US is foolish historical revisionism. Not sure the variation you learned in school, but they attacked us first. We lost a good chunk of our Pacific fleet, and it was only by the grace of God that they didn't hit the fuel dumps in Pearl Harbor. Had that happened, the war would have taken at least another year, possibly two.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events, but war IS terrible. By concentrating all the awfulness into just two events, overall many lives were probably saved. Particularly ours, which must be our primary consideration in war.

In my opinion, the deliberately-induced firestorm in Dresden was at least as great a crime. What is it about people's thinking.... a whole bunch of small explosions that kill tens of thousands of people are okay, but a single BIG explosion that kills fewer people is a crime against humanity?

Remember, Dresden was a follow-on to Hamburg. We knew what was likely to happen and we deliberately induced the exact same effect. By dropping incendiary bombs over several days, they started a raging fire that engulfed more than eight square miles. It generated so much heat that it became its own weather system, creating hurricane-force winds that literally sucked everyone and everything around to their destruction. More than 200,000 bodies were recovered, and the total death toll is believed to exceed 250,000.

Between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, about 120,000 died... less than half.

Your bleating about an apology from the US is just emotional handwringing with no basis in reality. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were humane by the standards of WW2... they did, after all, end the war.

(and to those who start bitching about radiation effects... we didn't KNOW very much about radiation effects at the time. In the middle of a war, where the enemy is trying desperately to kill you and those you love, you don't worry a lot about long-term consequences. You ask, "will using this weapon hurt our people in any way?" If the answer is no, and the weapon is a good one, it's going to get used.)

Wars are very easy to start, but very hard to stop. We stopped a war in its tracks by killing 120,000 people with two planes and two big bombs. It was the right decision, and no apology should ever be expected.

Re:Sixtieth Anniversary

[Malor]

Your own arguments aren't self-supporting. You talk about how nasty that war was before we dropped the atomic bombs, how much damage we were doing to the Japanese and how many people were dying. There would have been more of that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not sure any of us can intelligently estimate, anymore, how long an invasion would have taken -- most of the people who really knew have died. But I saw estimates that the war, prosecuted by conventional means, would have taken another year and at least a million Japanese lives... as well as a very large number of our own.

In war, the first duty is to protect one's own country and one's own citizens... if a thousand enemies have to die to save one of yours, then you DO that. We should, as a country, avoid war at all costs... Iraq is an incredible blunder. But once you are in a war, you fight to WIN. Fighting to be nice is fighting to lose. We did NOT start that war, it was inflicted upon us, and we did exactly what we should have.

And peace negotiations aren't something you get into with someone who deliberately and sneakily attacked you as the Japanese did. What we wanted (and got) was a total, unconditional surrender. And I would argue that the world has benefited enormously from doing so... had we been 'merciful' and hoped like heck for peace negotiations, we'd have been pinning our hopes on maybes instead of reality. And it's entirely posssible that Japan's old government and old, nasty way of doing business would have survived a peace negotiation. By forcing an unconditional surrender, we got the foundation laid for Japan to make itself into what it is now... an economic powerhouse with the most advanced technology on the planet. And no military or aspirations to invade anyone.

Your argument that 'war is only as hellish as you make it' is the argument of someone who's likely to lose. You fight to WIN. Don't pick fights, avoid them when you can... go FAR out of your way to avoid them if possible... but if forced to fight, WIN. Win so thoroughly that you'll never have to fight that opponent again.

You must know, on some level, that what you are arguing is specious, since you won't sign your name to it.

Re:Sixtieth Anniversary

[benzapp]

Wars are very easy to start, but very hard to stop. We stopped a war in its tracks by killing 120,000 people with two planes and two big bombs. It was the right decision, and no apology should ever be expected.

But what is the legacy of these wars which the United States and her allies indirectly started? Yes, yes... Japanese imperialism, but does anyone think North Korea today is better than it was under Japanese rule? Is it just that Japan is forced to have the highest population density in the world? Japan had more of a right to conquer foreign lands than the US had to its doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". Further, Western Imperialism was far more exploitive than anything the Japanese were trying to implement. The cowardly Roosevelt administration acted as if a state of war existed with Japan for years, and then was supposedly surprised when she finally responded with force. Yeah, right.

As for Europe, that war was started by the allies. Of that, there can be no question. Not only did they start it, but they lied about their motives. Can anyone argue that Eastern Europe in 1970 was a better place than the one in 1939? Was the reclammation of German lands held by Poland worth the complete communist enslavement of that country?

WWII... the war where victory became defeat.

The problem with allied atrocities during WWII is the hypocricy. The war was painted as some sort of holy war against the axis of evil. Yet the outcome was arguably far worse than prewar state of affairs.

Re:Potential problems

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

I hereby elevate You to the position of Ignorant, since you are oblivious to the fact that the other person ignorantly believed your message.

Really, get a dictionary, you must be confused about what Ignorance is.

Here, let me help you ... with a reminder that to be ignorant is not to be stupid, but to be unaware or unknowledgeable of a subject ...

Ignorant \Ig"no*rant\, a. [F., fr. L. ignorans, -antis, p. pr. of ignorare to be ignorant. See Ignore.]

1. Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened. [1913 Webster]

He that doth not know those things which are of use for him to know, is but an ignorant man, whatever he may know besides. --Tillotson. [1913 Webster]

2. Unacquainted with; unconscious or unaware; -- used with of. [1913 Webster]

Ignorant of guilt, I fear not shame. --Dryden. [1913 Webster]

3. Unknown; undiscovered. [Obs.]

[1913 Webster]

Ignorant concealment. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

Alas, what ignorant sin have I committed? --Shak. [1913 Webster]

4. Resulting from ignorance; foolish; silly. [1913 Webster]

His shipping, Poor ignorant baubles! -- on our terrible seas, Like eggshells moved. --Shak.

Syn: Uninstructed; untaught; unenlightened; uninformed; unlearned; unlettered; illiterate. -- Ignorant, Illiterate. Ignorant denotes lack of knowledge, either as to single subject or information in general; illiterate refers to an ignorance of letters, or of knowledge acquired by reading and study. In the Middle Ages, a great proportion of the higher classes were illiterate, and yet were far from being ignorant, especially in regard to war and other active pursuits. [1913 Webster]

In such business Action is eloquence, and the eyes of the ignorant More learned than the ears. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

In the first ages of Christianity, not only the learned and the wise, but the ignorant and illiterate, embraced torments and death. --Tillotson. [1913 Webster]

Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44