Slashdot Mirror
LA To Become First In US To Install Subway Body Scanners (apnews.com)
Los Angeles officials announced Tuesday that the city's subway will become the first mass transit system in the U.S. to install body scanners that screen passengers for weapons and explosives. "The deployment of the portable scanners, which project waves to do full-body screenings of passengers walking through a station without slowing them down, will happen in the coming months, said Alex Wiggins, who runs the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's law enforcement division," reports the Associated Press reports: The machines scan for metallic and non-metallic objects on a person's body, can detect suspicious items from 30 feet (9 meters) away and have the capability of scanning more than 2,000 passengers per hour. On Tuesday, Pekoske and other officials demonstrated the new machines, which are being purchased from Thruvision, which is headquartered in the United Kingdom. In addition to the Thruvision scanners, the agency is also planning to purchase other body scanners -- which resemble white television cameras on tripods -- that have the ability to move around and hone in on specific people and angles, Wiggins said. Signs will be posted at stations warning passengers they are subject to body scanner screening. The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway.
"The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Because it's "voluntary". You know, you don't HAVE to voluntarily submit to this [otherwise unlawful search and seizure].
Just don't ride the subway. Your rights are all protected. Except of course the ability to use the government provided mass transit system.
E
No more subways, no more light rail, no more buses, no more sitting in traffic for hours, and now no getting body scanned for the slightest smallest odds that something bad might happen one day.
I'm not a fan of these invasive searches but if that was the case wouldn't that apply to airports?
I would always make sure I had a stiffy before going in so the screener would see it
The machines scan for metallic and non-metallic objects on a person's body, can detect suspicious items from 30 feet (9 meters) away
Let me guess, this thing is made by Theranos veterans.
Umm. voluntary means I can choose not to be scanned without negative consequences such as being denied a service. Mandatory means that if I want X I must do Y. scanning is thus mandatory for subway riders and people can voluntarily not take the subway.
I guess that depends if the subway counts as a government or private entity.
If it was a government one, then wouldn't the right to free movement be a stronger argument?
If it is private, then you are shit out of luck.
Of course these days they love to blur the lines... because representing the people is the LAST thing they want to do - where is the advantage in that (to themselves, of course..)
On our 'society'.
Do people really want an airport experience to ride the subway to and from work every day? I think not.
California is always so revenue hunry, it's probably designed to sniff out $100 bills.
So subways are "voluntary", as is using the public libraries. Court houses need scanners for "safety". Walmart is "a private business". Oh, and interstates are also "voluntarily", you can take an alternate route (or walk).
No Unauthorized Weapons Allowed Beyond This Point.
This won't help for the guy who punched me in the face and ran, in broad daylight, at the busiest station in LA.
This won't help for the fact that even though he looked right into the camera, because I didn't write down what the exact car # it was (I still don't know where this number is supposedly posted), they couldn't pull the tape.
This won't help for the fact that the piggies suck at their job.
This won't help. But it will cost a lot of money and violate a lot of people's privacy. So good idea, eh?
A fair number of people riding the Metro take auxiliary transportation modes with them - bikes, scooter (powered and unpowered), and skateboards all which are large metal containing objects, in addition to various other cargos. Subways aren't planes - people take them to go shopping, and there is no "cargo hold" or a place to "check baggage" - people carry everything they are taking on their person. Also people are often moving pretty fast to make it from one line to the next in their commute. What happens when one of these monitors triggers? Though they do have Metro Cops, they have never had enough to have them posted routinely at every Metro entrance or transfer point. How is this really going to work?
And does the "mass casualty" standard make any sense? Two of the worst mass shootings in the U.S. history - the Luby's (24 dead) and Virginia Tech (33 dead) massacres - were done with hand guns - both of them polymer frame Glocks that have less metal than standard handgun designs.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
That's not the question, I don't think people want the airport experience at the airport.
airports are government and they scan you!
When was the last time you saw anyone actually asking for representation?
Last time I checked the election was between R's and D's. Neither of which are for the little guy. Both are for big business, they just go about it in different ways so that people can use cheap excuses to say they are really different. There is a reason both parties are splintering. Both of their own recognize that they cannot get representation.
Bush a republican created this problem and Mr "we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America" Obama a democrat didn't change a single fucking thing... except the rhetoric.
Looks like a portable device, either an IR camera or terahertz scanner, not fixed infrastructure like airport body scanners.
So it will likely be deployed at random entrances to the system. Time for a Twitter feed with locations where the LAPD is deploying the damned things, same as feeds of drunk-driving or immigration checkpoints. Be a good citizen, watch the cops like a hawk watching a tasty piglet.
If I buy a rack of kitchen knives, I can't take it home on the subway? What about knitting needles? I sometimes carry a pen knife. Scissors? Will the play-doh for the kids look like plastic explosives?
this is utter garbage.
We Americans are at fault for this, allowing a bunch of terrorists to scare ignorant people like you into allowing this tyranny.
Those who give up essential liberty for safety do not get either liberty or safety as well as no longer deserving liberty or safety.
The sign that tells people that if they keep walking into a 'station" that they will be scanned?
The person can then select not to go further. Not to get scanned by not using the service.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or 2nd amendment right. Washington State (Where I live), permits concealed carry. You can take your concealed loaded handgun on any public transportation, (except planes, because that's federally controlled. It is legal to bring a locked gun with you in an airplane, if you're legal to have the firearm in the leaving and destination locations and you declare it. That's US wide).
The difference in CA is that they've so removed gun ownership rights.
And use the next nearby station or a different entrance, same as when NYPD roots through people's bags like spastic hogs.
Trust has been on the way out for a long time. Its a whole lot easier to put this sort of stuff in than to ever take it away. Under the guise of everyone possibly being the next terrorist, AI will be right around the corner.
--
"My son was one of a kind. You're the first of a kind." -- Professor Hobby
It's an IR camera, apparently ("Terahertz waves" is a fancy term for high-frequency IR), so no. Metal objects block IR radiation or radiate differently and thus are visible.
It legit took me a bit to figure out they didn't mean subway restaurants but that's probably because in my area they lock up the garbage at the walgreens.
It's not constitutional there either. Or at least it wouldn't be if the judges weren't developmentally delayed morons that couldn't grasp the consequences of any of their decisions.
If you need to get between two distant parts of the US the same day, you really don't have any other options than air travel. Refusing to visit a relative that's on their death bed because you don't want to be sexually assaulted by TSA agents engaged in illegal searches is not something that a reasonable person should consider voluntary. Likewise, business travelers shouldn't be considered to have consented to a search when they'd lose their jobs if they refused.
This whole business of considering it "voluntary" because there's a version of the thing that doesn't involve the illegal search is ridiculous. In most of the cases, that other option just is not viable for significant numbers of people. I'd love to have the time to take the train to distant parts of the country. I do not, however have so much vacation time that that's viable. Which is beside the point as they're trying to set the trains up with similar machines because clearly the terrorists will get on the train rather than doing something to the tracks to cause it to derail.
... is:
the new machines, which are being purchased from Thruvision, which is headquartered in the United Kingdom.
So, security and private shit is outsourced??
NSA will be hiring Thruvision for data.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
OK, and how do they get where they need to go? For most poor people, public transportation isn't optional. We don't all have huge sums of money and time to buy a car and wait in traffic.
I don't think a reasonable person would consider this voluntary if the alternative is being restricted to going places that you can walk.
The Thruevision website says that it's a passive camera which operates in the 250 GHz range. That's infrared. No safety concerns, thankfully, and judging from the pictures no privacy concerns either. They're basically just like pictures from a visible-spectrum camera, only monochromatic and blurry. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be useful...
Does anyone know how this is supposed to work? Maybe a gun or a bomb or other large object would be colder than the rest of your body? So it would show up as a cold spot?
This is a passive camera that captures THz (IR) radiation emitted by human bodies. It doesn't produce any radiation, only captures it.
That is the idea of why its been set that way and everyone is scanned. Random stops of people who are criminals are difficult to present as "random".
The need for some type of reasonable and articulable suspicion is removed when everyone is scanned.
Scan everyone and that later legal question is stopped. Its not the police selecting any random person. Everyone gets a scan thats equal before the law.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
...now there is more material for Cory Doctorow to use for another book in the Little Brother / Homeland / Walkaway series.
"The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway."
Yea, security screenings at airports are voluntary as well...but customers who choose not to be screened won't be allowed on flights.
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg
Concealed carry isn't actually illegal in CA -- rural counties give out permits like candy, and they've valid throughout the state. Which is probably why they claim they won't be looking for "small" weapons: quite a few people in CA are concealed-carrying, perfectly legally.
Jared's back. But don't worry, the scanners are only for 15 and unders.
I want that camper torn apart, full cavity searches all around.
gated subways yes ungated rail will take a lot of work to rebuild station to channel people into paths (unless you want to pay to put rail on big overpasses in the middle of town)
It owes north of a trillion and itâ(TM)s debt is growing.
Yeah fuck that if I go to Germany Iâ(TM)m not getting in any train- Iâ(TM)ve seen too many movies.
OF COURSE people don't want it. The government wants it. As do the sellers of the scanners. They are more powerful than the people, so they get what they want.
Hopefully, soon to be bankrupt...
FTFY.
Everything is "voluntary" until it isn't. Just like how having a smart meter is "voluntary" until the utility company refuses to provide service until you install their remote monitoring equipment. Or how the internet itself was "voluntary" until businesses stopped accepting physical applications, governments demanded digital health records, most brick and mortar retailers went out of business, etc.
You can fully expect that if it allows power over others, it will become mandatory at some point. Especially in a police state.
That will only happen if they are ever installed in California
We need to build a wall around the US and ban international travel for any US citizens to stop the infection from spreading.
Requiem for the American Dream
It's an "It's completely up to you" situation.
Requiem for the American Dream
There could be glzed truffle dinuts in those bags.
Requiem for the American Dream
It's a win for the 'healthcare' system.
Requiem for the American Dream
I guess it's "voluntary" to not go through screening at the courthouse either. But if I don't, then I can't report for the stupid jury summons they send. So my defense is that they denied me access to the courthouse.
AC the need to pass scanning will be presented well ahead of entering so the "they're commonly advertised ahead of time." is covered.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What better way to study the effects than to have a widespread deployment in public places. Cost effective compared to standard trials. God bless the freedom-loving ways of Nazi America.
Requiem for the American Dream
AC its passive.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Balancing a budget would be the first step toward paying off their debts. You can't get out of debt if you don't quit running at a deficit first.
Newsflash, your own government is worse than the thing they're 'protecting you from.'
Requiem for the American Dream
Well, let's look at the numbers, shall we?
Percentage of households owning a car:
(1) USA: 88%
(2) Germany: 85%
(3) South Korea: 83%
(4) France: 83%
Household car ownership rates in the US and Germany are almost the same, filling out spots #1 and #2. Why can't we all be as perfect as the Germans? Oh, wait, we are!
It is and does, but it's a last defense. We don't reach for the guns right off, we try to fight in in the courts and politically first and too many citizens are complacent and think this stuff makes us safer.
Tyranny is hardest to fight when it's imposed slowly and subtly and with the support of a large portion of the populace who thinks it makes them safer.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
It's not constitutional there either. Or at least it wouldn't be if the judges weren't developmentally delayed morons that couldn't grasp the consequences of any of their decisions.
Some are corrupt, some stupid, and many quietly taken aside when a key case/decision/precedent is in play for a meeting. Remember the "interview scene" from The Matrix when Agent Smith and Neo first meet?
Do you remember that huge binder of data Smith dropped on the desk, opened, and began to tell Neo all about the minute details of his life like the "neighbor lady" he takes the trash out for? Thanks to the US TLAs there are virtual 'binders' on everyone including judges and their family, friends, and associates. They might note that his kid/grandkid/spouse/loved-one/etc might be dabbling in something technically illegal and it would be tragic if police received an 'anonymous tip'. "Now wouldn't it, your Honor? I know you'll do the right thing. For your family's sake."
That's one of the great dangers of having an intelligence agency with data on everyone...it makes them the de facto leaders, not those elected by the people to lead, as those in charge of the intelligence agencies have the ability to destroy anyone (and/or their loved ones) they wish at any time for whatever reason they like.
Always treat government like fire. History teaches us that you are more likely by far to be unjustly killed or imprisoned at the hands of your own government than from the actions of any foreign nation or terrorist group, foreign or domestic.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Wow. They have completely got you. Like totally. The government has seized control of your mind and ravaged your critical thinking.
They are literally taking your freedom away right before your eyes and yet you are still taking the bait and blaming the scapegoat.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
So all those people who claim that air travel is not a necessity and that you should forgo long-distance travel for pleasure or work or family to stick it to the TSA, (and therefore implicitly blaming people who do fly for 'supporting' this regime), what now? What when it is your local only-viable transport system that's installed it? When does the myth of the effective boycot get exposed, and we have to admit that there is a problem that can't be fixed by the 'market', and actually have to fix with legislation?
We have become the Soviet Union.
Students who need to walk through metal detectors and have police posted in their buildings; airport customers treated like prison visitors -- trip a detector and get searched; police and fire stations where officers sit behind 3-inches of bullet proof glass. And now subway body scanners.
Believe it or not, when I was a kid, we never locked the front door. Yeah, it wasn't all that long ago.
Give me a break. I live in a state with very big 2A rights, where the NRA has single's nights at gun ranges. I have yet to see someone actually brandish a firearm, much less hear a shot fired in anger, and I live in a metropolitan area.
Florida is not how the rest of the US is. Someone tries using "stand your ground" over a parking space in other states, and the jury and judge will laugh at them as they do a life sentence for voluntary manslaughter. Those incidents are quite rare, outside of gang territory.
One stupid incident doesn't mean everyone is going to do a Wild West style showdown over any spat.
Terahertz waves are LOWER frequency waves than IR.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
The human body does not emit terahertz waves in any detectable amount. And terahertz waves are NOT IR. That's like saying microwave ovens are FM radios.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
Car ownership is one thing and public transport is another. I have a benefit of living in both countries for extended time and getting around in Germany using public transport is easy, pleasant and safe (at least used to be), I have not heard of public bus or tram robberies or groping (there are some incidents reported in news recently though). In general, if I had to compare:
- ownership of a car in Europe in general is much more expensive then in the US due to taxes
- getting around using public transportation in the US cities is not that bad either, just people usually drive
Most importantly to contribute to this discussion I have to say that vast majority of the critical opinions in the US about Europe is from people, who have never been there and vice-versa.
Most Americans couldn't care less about Europe because Europe is of little importance to them or the world. The people who still comment are emigres like myself, and we don't do it because we care about the future of Europe, but because we don't want more bad ideas to spill over from Europe to the US.
People drive in the US because it's fast, cheap, simple, and convenient. Why people drive less in Germany is no great mystery: on average, Germans are poorer and the government deliberate makes it expensive to drive. And the German government subsidizes the kind of transportation that the intellectual and political elite in Germany prefers, which is why public transit is excellent near political power centers and universities.
Fuck this! It's out of control. These fuckers need to be removed from society. Fastt! They are a danger to democracy. They are the problem.
Actually, it IS technically legal to own an anti-aircraft gun. Anything above .50 cal requires a special license as does a fully automatic machine gun. The problem comes with the ammunition, which is typically explosive rounds - that's different story.
In Seattle, when calling 911 takes 2 hours for police to show up, crime is going through the roof, homeless populations are spiking, and homeless encampments allow their destitute transients to rape and openly use drugs - you might rethink that not arming yourself plan...
If you're going to argue in favor of mass gun ownership then at least put it context like protection from government (our own and others), the actual reason for the 2nd amendment, that is harder to argue against. Simply lifting your head up and looking at almost every other first world nation that has far stricter gun control laws then ours you'll see societies that are, if not massively safer, just as safe as ours.
Also, if you're going to site numbers try to make sure they are even close to correct so if some one checks them you don't look like a total idiot. Here are the actual average response tmes for priority calls in Seattle http://council.seattle.gov/201... . You're a little off to say the least.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Learn something new every day.
The complete banning of the amunition an arm needs to shoot is pretty much equivalent to banning the fire arm so my point still holds and if any one disagrees I'm pretty sure I kind find some sort of arms that are completely banned in the US which is all I need for my point to be correct.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
1 somebody is going to make a mint selling metallic leotards (blocks the scanner)
2 somebody is going to hack them to grab the images that are stored (and yes there will be stored images)
3 somebody will either attack the scanners or have a device that is triggered by these things do something NASTY
for the little guy. They call themselves "Justice Democrats" and they refuse corporate & PAC money. Join the Democratic party and vote in their primary (if you're in a state where you have open primaries then you don't need to bother joining). They're the best hope the little guys has. We need to make denying corporate & PAC money the #1 litmus test for all politicians, and they're a good place to start.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do.... people in Germany really care about how NewYorkers and Midwesterners get to work?
People drive in the US because it's fast, cheap, simple, and convenient.
People also use public transportation because it's... faster, cheaper, simpler, and more convenient. ...In big cities like NY.
Dear god, just PARKING in NY you have to pay out the ass. You're rich or dumb to own a car in a big city. And... I imagine the same is true for backwater Barvaria. Do they have subway systems through-out German farmland?
Europe has a better rail system. Many European cities have better mass transit. America has decent mass transit in the bigger cities. Atlanta and LA traffic can go fuck themselves. In a lot of not-major-cities, if you're poor, you take the bus and walk the last 5 blocks. I hear Europe's buses aren't quite as low-class.
the [german] government deliberate makes it expensive to drive. And the German government subsidizes the kind of transportation that the intellectual and political elite in Germany prefers, which is why public transit is excellent near political power centers and universities.
Right, and in the USA we subsidize the oil&gas corporations to the tune of $4.6 Billion/year because they have our economy by the balls. (And they would even if we did make our cities more mass-transity and make passenger-rail more viable, we're just more spread out. Cars and trucks are simply more viable here, fundamentally). Hence, average gas prices here are US$2.81/gal while it's US$5.57/gal in Frankfurt. For a fungible resource that gets shipped globally, there's obviously market-fuckery going on. But you don't see anyone in power, conservatives or libertarians (pft, as if libertarians got into power) alike ever crying about letting the free market decide. So the cost of road upkeep is socialized in the USA, while gas tax pays for the roads in Germany.
The screening process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not be screened won't be able to ride on the subway. LOL
I'm not trying to say you're wrong. It's just that 2A makes it really difficult to ban any weapon. It's a right the founding fathers felt so important, they specifically wrote it into our Constitution. Additionally, so long as you're willing to go through the Federal tax stamp process and can pass a back ground check, there's not much you can't buy. You can get an FFL (Federal Firearms License) for $150 and be an arms dealer which gets you access to anything for the most part. Being a dealer can even skate you past many State regs as well.
That's deceptive at best, because this doesn't count the distance a given car is driven per year, or how many households own more than one car.
Here we go, hand grenades :)
https://www.criminaldefenselaw...
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Federal "security" funding, or maybe someone at Metro had a friend who knew someone at a company that sells and services the hardware.
AC made a comment about car ownership, not about distance driven or cars per household. That's what I responded to.
Yes, Americans drive longer distances. I think it's great. Americans see a lot more of the world around them and are having a great deal of fun out in nature doing things they love.
Yes, Americans own more cars per household. I think it's great. Americans own nearly twice as many vehicles per capita as Germans, often owning a couple of small cars for commuting, a pickup truck for towing a boat/RV and home improvement, and an SUV for travel. Americans even have the space to park those vehicles.
The pattern of car ownership and use of public transit in the US and Europe tells you a lot about both countries, just not what you think it does.
Fireworks are still a thing. There has to be some sort of permission slip to launch explosive shells from a tube.
I kind find some sort of arms that are completely banned in the US which is all I need for my point to be correct.
I typically go with nukes when I'm making this sort of argument. If you're talking with a libertarian, even the crazy sort that thinks we should privatize the police force, you can typically get them to agree that we should stop arabs from bringing in fissionable material to the states. As long as you coach it like that even they can see reason.
I hear if you stick a conical copper chamber on top of your microwave with a magical High-Q-value waffer on one end, you can launch a satellite into space.
(finger-guns and a solid "eeeyyy" to anyone getting that reference)
What they care about is portraying their country as a model, a country that strikes the perfect balance between rational policies, social responsibility, and freedom. And they want to spread that to the rest of the world. It's a cultural trait stemming from a deep insecurity and fear of inferiority, and it is independent of the form of government Germans happen to have at the time.
Yes, but like all public transit systems in the US, it's a cesspool of corruption and rent seeking that requires massive infusion of taxpayer dollars from taxpayers who will never see the benefits. Even if it was a good idea and we wanted to, the US cannot pull off even a public transit system like Germany has.
Better in what sense? The US has a rail system that's bigger than the entire EU's combined, and the US rail system is utilized nearly 100%. It simply happens to be utilized what rail systems are really good for: freight. Europeans have turned their rail system into expensive leisure travel for the elites while European highways are clogged with dirty, dangerous trucks.
Not surprising. In the US, only the very poor have to take buses for financial reasons. In Europe, a car is a significant burden for even many people in the middle class.
Correct, and I think we should abolish that. But you need to see that in relation to the energy produced. Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $0.05/MMBtu, while solar is subsidized to the tune of $17.38/MMBtu. Abolishing fossil fuel subsidies would have no effect on the market, while abolishing subsidies for alternative energies would kill the alternative energy market.
No, it's because there is simply no economically feasible alternative, and there won't be for another 10-20 years. And "they" don't have anybody by the balls: there is a huge global market in fossil fuels.
Last I checked, federal gas taxes roughly cover federal highway maintenance, plus or minus a few billion.
In any case, the US built its inefficient, government-subsidized, environmentally harmful federal highway system following the example of German fascists. Maybe we should take a hint from history and stop copying what the Germans do rather than compounding one bad idea (the federal highway system) with yet another (massive gas taxes)? How about privatizing both federal highways and public transit?
Europe has a better rail system.
Better in what sense?
In the public transit sense. Our rail moves coal. Which has priority over Amtrak.
Europeans have turned their rail system into expensive leisure travel for the elites
Looks like US$32 from London to Paris. Paris to Stolkhom is US$112. That'd be a 20 hours drive, passing through 4 countries. ~1200 miles. Even with US prices, that'd be $134 in gas money alone.
Ok dude. You hate Europe and they can do nothing right. We get it.
Right, and in the USA we subsidize the oil&gas corporations to the tune of $4.6 Billion/year [cbo.gov]
Correct, and I think we should abolish that.
HURRZAH! Something we can unite behind. Let's whip out the victory parade and come together under a united banner and there can be peace in our ti....
But...
MOTHERFUCKER! COME ON!
"bu bu but Solar subsidies"!? Really? Developing new tech that saves the planet vs subsidizing ancient established oil barons and a product that might lead to a human extinction event....
Abolishing fossil fuel subsidies would have no effect on the market, while abolishing subsidies for alternative energies would kill the alternative energy market.
siiiiiiiiiiigh, you double-talking motherfucker. You had JUST AGREED we should get rid of oil subsidies. And then you say it would have no effect.
How about privatizing both federal highways and public transit?
No, fuck your toll roads. And I don't like my pavement suddenly turning to gravel.
Seeing the world? A joke. The average American worker has a week of vacation every year. More like longer commutes from the suburban hells where they can find room to park three cars.
Good! That's the economically rational, environmentally friendly way of using the rail system.
Yes, if you're the kind of privileged person who has need to travel from London to Paris, not only is it a nice train ride, it's heavily government subsidized by tax payers who never are going to enjoy that ride.
In the US, you'd fly.
If you want new tech that saves the planet, you shouldn't have the government subsidize it because that actually hurts, rather than helps, innovation.
Yeah, the usual ridiculous, irrational beliefs and platitudes.
Where do you see the contradiction? Why wouldn't I agree to abolish a meaningless, insignificant subsidy?
Your capacity to hold contradictory beliefs in your head is just astounding. You complain that the cost of highways is socialist, that drivers don't pay their fair share, and that Americans drive too much; you want more solar and more public transportation; yet, the policies you want are not only massive subsidies for solar projects and public transit, but continuing subsidies of the highway system.
Oh, Europe does plenty of things right. On many measures of individual economic freedom, Europe actually does better than the US. There are many European policies the US should adopt, just not the ones that you and Bernie happen to like.
Where do you people get these bizarre ideas from? Average annual hours worked by Americans are just slightly above OECD average, behind many European nations. And since American employers are far more flexible in terms of working hours, that translates into even more vacation days than European countries working comparable numbers of hours.
Are we talking about nominal hours for the US or actual? US has a nasty way of not enforcing overtime -- many people are in the office 10-11 hours a day, but are "nominally" working 8 hour days and 40 hour weeks.
Electric trains for both passengers and freight are environmentally friendly, especially if powered by clean nuclear or hydro power. They can collect power directly, so no need for toxic, environmentally costly batteries like in electric cars, and no need to burn fossil fools like gas cars or aircraft. Europe could do better with carrying more freight by rail, but the US can do better with electric passenger rail in populated areas.
In the public transit sense. Our rail moves coal. Which has priority over Amtrak.
Good! That's the economically rational, environmentally friendly way of using the rail system.
That'd be a 20 hours drive, passing through 4 countries. ~1200 miles. Even with US prices, that'd be $134 in gas money alone.
In the US, you'd fly.
Yaaaay all that economically rational and environmentally friendly use of jet fuel! From all those.... privileged few who ever have need of flying 1200 miles.... Because that's different than... riding an elitist euro trains... I guess... hmm.
Why wouldn't I agree to abolish a meaningless, insignificant subsidy [to the USA Oil&Gas companies]?
Well let's just focus on our shared goals and common ground shall we? Fuck giving the record-breaking-profit corporations free money.
Actual hours worked.
Most people working in offices are exempt from overtime regulations. This gives people the flexibility of working "10-11 hours a day" and then taking Friday off. So, far from being "nasty", this is a good thing.
The "Fair Labor Standards Act" (and its European equivalents) is a nasty piece of legislation that hurts employees.
For moving people? Most freight can be moved at low speeds, which is far more efficient. People's time is valuable and travel by rail is slow due to connections etc. And people need point-to-point connectivity between many places, something rail networks can't provide. Also the difference between trains and cars isn't all that large because trains need to move all their mass even if there are only a few passengers.
What makes the European train "elitists" is that the best connectivity for passenger trains is between the places where the wealthy and powerful congregate, just like in the US. But they are also simply expensive and slow, meaning you need both the money and the free time to take them:
LondonBerlin 9/10-9/12: Train: $199, 10h each way Ryanair: $39, 2h each way
LondonParis 9/10-9/12: Train: $157, 2:20h each way EasyJet: $81, 1:20h each way
The energy sector has profit margins that tend to be about average; information technology and financial usually outperform it.
And you seem to believe that subsidies to oil/gas companies are simply taken as "free money" by those companies, but when you give subsidies to solar energy companies, they are supposedly used for innovation and to lower prices, a strange form of doublethink. In fact, subsidies, like taxes, are usually just passed on to consumers, so subsidies lower both gas prices (insignificantly because they are so small) and solar prices (massively).
It is a dubious proposition that criss-crossing the country with rail lines is "environmentally friendly".
On top of that, passenger and freight trains are different systems. Freight trains travel at about 20 mph average; they can't be mixed with passenger compartments and don't coexist well on the same rail system. Going 20 mph on trains is also very efficient, compared to the 200 mph of high speed rail (=massive wind resistance, very expensive construction).
If we had more nuclear or hydro power, the simplest way to take advantage of it would be to substitute it for existing fossil fuel use, not to build new rail lines.
When you're talking about "rail in populated areas", that means "light rail", a completely different system. Light rail has its own problems, separate from long distance rail. One big problem with light rail is that it uses tax payer money to encourage people to move further away from work than they otherwise might have. Light rail is a system by which you tax poor working class folks so that wealthy white collar workers get a nice commute from their cushy office jobs to condos in nice parts of the city or sprawling suburban homes.
Fortunately, rail lines can have more than one track. If you have three or four, you can separate passenger and freight trains on different tracks.
As far as efficiency, it's not everything. Ability to power 200 mph trains with nuclear power or hydro power is better than burning fossil fuel for a 500 mph airplane. Source of energy also matters.
As far as light rail, the workers will drive and sprawl to infinity anyway. See also, places like Dallas or Phoenix.
In fact, subsidies, like taxes, are usually just passed on to consumers, so subsidies lower both gas prices (insignificantly because they are so small)
Aaaaaaand now he's done a full 180. Now $4.6 Billion/year is "too small" a subsidy to oil and gas companies to have an effect. But apparently all that money "just gets passed on to consumers" so hey I guess they're not that bad at all.
What a fucking crackpot.
London-Paris on EasyJet flies out of Southend, not Heathrow, Gatwick, or City. Factor in the time/money getting there and back. Factor in the costs for carry-on bags. Factor in time getting through security (Eurostar x-rays bags, but it's easy compared to airport security). Cost for flight alone 100 pounds, or about $130. You're likely close to $200 and 4-5 hours of travel time with getting to Southend, carry-on fees, etc. Meanwhile, cheapest train fare is $130 round trip (not $157), and leaves you in the middle of both cities, close to available/cheap ground transportation, not in bumblefuck-elsewhere. Eurostar doesn't nick you for carry-on bags and other petty fees, either.
The incident I was referring to actually happened last month in Ballard, a North Seattle suburb. A woman trying to sell a mullion dollar house found squatters and camped in her back yard and when she called police it took 2 hours for them to arrive.
You can show what ever "self reported" stats you want. I have other friends who live in Snohomish County - North of Seattle - who have called 911 and it takes over 1/2 hour for the PD to arrive. Pull what you want from the "never wrong" interwebie, or, live here and know facts. https://omny.fm/shows/the-dori...
Show me where my statements contradict each other.
I've consistently said that.
As I have been saying, fossil fuel subsidies are insignificant. They amount to $0.05/MMBtu (or $0.15 / MWh). That amount gets passed on to consumers and it makes no difference whatsoever. It is you who clings to the absurd notion that fossil fuel subsidies somehow keep fossil fuels alive.
Solar is subsidized at $17.93/MMBtu (or $50/MWh), a huge subsidy. Removing that huge subsidy would have a huge effect on the market.
We should kill both subsidies. The effect on fossil fuel use would be nil. The effect on solar would be to stop subsidizing inefficient and costly solar technologies and encourage people to actually start innovating again. Right now, solar subsidies are hurting innovation.
The land use and cost is pretty much proportional to the number of tracks, so you're pretty much asking for creating two separate rail networks that happen to be geographically close; an inefficient use.
If we could produce that much hydropower and nuclear power, we'd already have eliminated most of US carbon emissions. We're burning coal precisely because we don't have that. So, that new passenger rail system you want to build would be powered by coal, just like electric cars are today.
This has been studied extensively: workers pick where they live based on commute time. So, spending a lot of money on light rail doesn't actually improve commute times. Mostly what it does is increase economic inequality.
No cost for a standard carry-on.
Can't you read? I just checked: $81.
You can find special deals all the time, both on air and on train travel. I simply picked a date a month out and picked the prices from the main web sites. Furthermore, the trains are subsidized, so the true cost is actually much higher.
You're basically confabulating prices and charges in a vain attempt to justify an inefficient, heavily-subsidized transportation system: rail.
I.e., it's perfect for wealthy elites who can afford housing close to the city centers and have business at upscale businesses and shops close to city centers, all massively subsidized by the vast majority of Brits and Frenchmen who never will get their money's worth. It's a giant rip-off. I'm glad Americans are smarter than to fall for that crap.
(1) No. Certain fixed costs (i.e. engineering, etc) don't change much whether you have one track or three or four. A large proportion of the costs is in initial design, environmental studies, and engineering -- laying down steel or asphalt is cheap by comparison.
(2) If we're going to be building rail networks, we could also build nuclear power stations to power them. Even with fossil fuel stations, it's easier to control emissions from a few point sources than from millions of cars, trucks, and buses.
I checked the prices for the same dates you did. Came up with 100 pounds ($125-$130) for the flights, $65 each way ($130) for rail, London-Paris. Seems like you're the one who's lying.
Blah, blah, blah, fun to watch you blabbering about the elites. At least if you end up in a city center, you can easily catch continuing transportation to where you're going. Or you can be picked up at an intermediate suburban station if you're interested, Eurostar has several.
Americans aren't smart at all ... their tax money is squandered on military and law enforcement and their contractor parasites. The only people who benefit are cops, military, and the wealthy contractors who supply them. Talking about trickle-up to the elites, there you have it.
Not even close. Look at California HSR or the German system.
You still don't get it: if we could build nuclear power plants, we would already be doing it, because nuclear power plants address all the concerns environmentalists are trying to address.
Again, you need to do your homework.
We're not building nuclear power plants for one reason -- ignorant cowards who don't want nukular radiashun in their backyards.
Then again, same applies to rail, even freight. People scream holy murder when infrastructure near them is expanded, and the court litigation process enables their obstructionism.
I can't find a $130 round trip on rail, but you can easily find a $86 flight (the price has gone up $3 and the cheapest flights are now on easyJet, Google Flights). In any case, even your rail numbers, we have established that flying is substantially cheaper than taking the train, and that's not taking into account the massive subsidies for trains.
Yes, and you have to deal with congestion in the city. And London-Paris is one of the best-case situations for rail. For longer distances, rail becomes increasingly worse relative to flying.
Depends on what you mean by "their tax money". Unlike Europe, where taxes are broad based, in the US, the federal government is largely financed by the top 20% of income earners.
Yes, largely the same "ignorant cowards" who want rail systems "like Hitler's" and who are afraid of the end of civilization because of "carbon pollushun". Things have a nice way of balancing out, don't they?
Yes, how odd that people don't want their neighborhoods cut in half, have noisy trains rumble through their back yards, and have lots of transient people go through their neighborhoods! How dare those peasants resist when rich people want to travel in style from city center to city center!
There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is mostly environmental regulations that are used to interfere with rail building. Unfortunately, the jackboot of government usually gets its way after years of litigation anyway.
I found a $130 round trip (65/way) on Eurostar's site. Flying was the same price, except it was LONGER practically speaking due to security, airport access, etc. Break even would probably be at a 3 to 4 hour train trip.
As far as congestion in the city, you have a choice whether to get off in a city-center or a suburban station with Eurostar. Unlike flying, it's not only point A to point B.
Taxes in Europe are broad-based because services like good public health care and cheap public university education are broad-based.
Yep, I'm all for ignorant global warming deniers like yourself getting a jackboot to the kisser and being ground into dust.
I don't "deny" global warming; it's clearly happening, I simply don't fear it.
But thanks for revealing your fascist tendencies anyway.
No, it wasn't.
Yeah, you and Bernie Sanders believe that crap. Put your fingers in your ear and deny both statistics and what a European tells you.
I have family in Europe who had opportunity to come to the US. They chose not to. Easier to raise a family in a European city without worrying about things like the next health insurance plan and the college fund.
If you don't fear something that can result in coastal areas being flooded, then you're just ignorant. We're not only talking about nice beaches, but about industrial plants laden with toxic chemicals.
Sea level rise due to climate change is a few feet per century. Explain to me how that is something to be feared.
Note that the Netherlands seem to be doing just fine with 1/4 of their country and population below sea level.
Of course not: they are Europeans. The thought of actually taking responsibility for their own lives scares them to death. That's why Europe is slowly spiraling down the drain.
There are more productive things people can do with their lives than spending time on worrying about college funds, private schools, and health insurance plans. Part of the role of a government is to remove the need for worry about mundane shit for a fee amounting to a percentage of one's income.
"A few feet", especially combined with more severe storms, is enough to flood industrial and former industrial areas and spread massive amounts of pollution. Think Hurricane Katrina times 100. But ignorami like yourself won't get it until it's too late.
There are indeed. Nobody likes dealing with that shit. Why not go a step further and hand over all financial management, tax accounting, home buying, etc. to government as well? Why not have the government pick your perfect marriage partner for you? After all, it's all a colossal waste of time!
In fact, the last couple of centuries of European history has shown that it's better for individual to deal with this shit themselves than to hand over responsibility for it to government.
Frankly, if I could just fill out a few lines on a tax return and sign on the line, I'd be happy to do so. It's a national shame how complicated the US government has made taxes. Financial management? Same. If I could enroll in a public pension plan that I didn't have to manage, I'd do so in a moment.
Home buying and partner are more personal choices, but I'm all for governments making the mundane crap that doesn't add anything good to life easier.
If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.
Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.
The irony of that statement is delicious.
The government saddles us with a complex, crony capitalist, special interest laden tax system and your response to it is "here, just take more of my money already and manage other parts of my life too"?
Why not enroll in a private pension plan that you don't have to manage? Many companies offer target retirement funds; all you need to do is pay in, they take care of the rest, efficiently and reliably.
As far as a pension plan -- I trust an elected government more than a bunch of Wall Street hucksters. Public pension plans are a great thing, SocSec should be expanded.
Problem is that it isn't just a matter of water slowly rising like in a bathtub. Rather, it's a matter of an increased risk of a storm causing a water incursion, so it will happen suddenly, as with Sandy and Katrina.
Also, I like my cold climate. A few degrees C of warming is the difference between being comfortable and feeling ill/sweating like a pig.
That amount gets passed on to consumers
Oh you're adorable. What other sort of bedtime fairy-tales do you have in store for us?
It is you who clings to the absurd notion that fossil fuel subsidies somehow keep fossil fuels alive.
You're less adorable when you're shoveling shit I didn't say into my mouth.
No.
Oil and gas subsidies are simply making a few CEO's richer.
We should kill both subsidies.
I for one LIKE technological improvement. And hey, to be completely fair to the oil barons, they found out how to extract it in bulk from oil shale. I didn't see that coming. That's a good thing, overall, as long as all that extra CO2 doesn't disrupt economies or kill us all.
Right now, solar subsidies are hurting innovation.
Oh, the fairy-tales have boogiemen as well.
If it happened overnight, sure. Not over the span of centuries, where people can build dikes or simply move. After all, most of that stuff didn't use to be there. And even if "industrial areas" flooded, it would be at most a minor nuisance.
I think he's talking about "industrial areas" like old factories with polluted dirt, that would wash away and into places we don't want it. Nobody but nobody, not even super-fund money, is going to move all the polluted GROUND of all the old factories that would be at risk of flooding. But I have to agree, this would be a nuisance in the big scheme of things. It'd likely kill thousands to millions via cancer and such, but over hundreds of years that's just a nuisance. In 10, it's more severe.
The bigger problem is that we CAN'T simply move things like FORESTS. And now all of California is too damn dry to support the forests they have and they're all on fire. Same is happening to Colorado. We're going to have to live with perpetual "don't even fart in the forest" levels of fire-ban because it's way dryer than the ecosystem is expecting. We also can't simply insta-seed all those hills with the mudslides for the places that get more rainfall. Or the places that used to have forests securing their dirt to the floor. And we can't simply relocate all the flora and fauna that depend on their climate being stable decade to decade. We ARE in the middle of a mass extinction event. And we can't move cities. We just can't. It's too damn expensive. New Orleans has been underwater for years, but it's still "economically viable" to keep building there. If that changed, we'd be looking at a humanitarian crisis. Are you ready for American refugees? And the cost of "preparing" a city for climate change is astounding. Like Hurricanes in NY. They're constant routine affair for Tokyo and Miami. They've built to deal with it. But NY is boned. Likewise if Pheonix simply runs out of water.
Even the IPCC has been unable to make a compelling argument for preventing climate change.
Yep. There are some ludicrously expensive ideas, and some crack-pot ideas, but nothing really viable. The best advice they've got is to shoot ourselves in the foot a little less by restricting CO2 pollution. The thing that is currently driving the bulk of climate change. That'd be oil consumption.
What are you guys even still doing here? This isn't a debate anymore, no one else is watching. I doubt either of you two will change your minds on anything. So really, what's the point of all this?
He's an ass, but he's got a point. Falling back to threats of violence really isn't helping.
That is true. Now you need to work out what the causes of that suddenness are, and you will discover that it's much simpler and cheaper to deal with them than limiting CO2 output.
And that's why we need to destroy the global economy and free markets!
If the ecahhhhhhnammmmy is based on destroying the Earth and changing it to be more hostile to humans, let it burn to the ground.
I can't tell whether you're trying to be funny or actually serious. Social security is unsustainable.
You mean like Venezuela? Or 1933's Germany? They too promised government pension plans and free education.
If they are not passed on to consumers, they primarily make share holders richers. You know, like everybody who has money in 401(k)'s.
Then why do you try to put government in charge of innovation? Innovation courtesy of the government is a miserable failure, except perhaps for WMDs.
Why would we have to move them? Climate change generally increases precipitation (due to increased evaporation) and it primarily increases temperatures at high latitudes. And California's destructive forest fires are the result of mismanagement, not climate change.
For me? I like to see what points people come up with, including people who are wildly wrong.
Fortunately, it isn't. Free market capitalism has been the best economic system from the point of view of protecting the environment. The worst? Progressivism, fascism, and socialism.
Ha ha. 2000 an hour. Go ahead. Put a few in the Times Square station in New York. Watch hilarity ensue.