The mere presence of a large amount of paperwork isn't necessarily enough to show that it's bad. Pharmaceutical and certain engineering patents are often filed with a great deal of supporting information, including information from prior patents that link in to that under submission. Each case should be decided on its merits. Those who repeatedly abuse the system should face consequences.
You've made an interesting concession with the research-based extension, but might this be abused? Even political issues within the FDA -- certainly not unknown -- could result in abuse directed at the patenter, cutting short necessary time to research the compound and effectively killing the drug.
It could be argued -- and I'm aware of the abuse possibilities for this, as well -- that the current patent time encourages further innovation. Two parties want to achieve a similar goal. One files and receives a patent for a method to reach it. The other party has several choices: wait for the patent to run out, license the patent as is, or come up with a method that does not use the existing method and patent the new method to protect it. There is a balancing act to this argument; copyrights are an area where the length of protection is well out of balance to the value that the protection provides to both the copyright holder and society as a whole.
I still don't quite understand why you think that 17 years is too long a time to hold a patent as valid. It's worked relatively well for some time now, and I think that when something works and someone calls to change it, the logic behind the proposed change should be compelling.
They may not take 17 years to reach fruition, but the amount of time that it takes to reach profitability can be many years. A lot of focus is placed on blockbuster drugs like Viagra which made back their research costs in only a couple of years. However, there are many drugs that are for much smaller markets which may take a decade or more to reach their first profits. Because there is a time lag between patent and FDA approval, it's very possible that the time between approval and patent lapse could be three to five years less than the actual patent duration, which can affect a decision on whether to pursue a drug in the first place.
I think 17 years is a good number for patents.
Re:He asked questions most people would want asked
on
Tim Russert Dies At 58
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most reporters are terrified of not being able to get an interview at the next request. Tim was a great example of someone who could rake a guest over the coals and yet have them leaving with the words, "Until next time." And next time could be only a few weeks later.
I always looked forward to how Russert handled interviews and debates. Left or right, loony or sane, one always got a fair hand from him. He'd get on anyone who was hiding something, but I don't know of many who left his presence angry.
He was a rarity in the world of political journalism.
I have read that Allied prisoners in Europe (except for Soviet POWs) were generally treated well, though perhaps not so well as Axis prisoners were treated. There was a strong reason for this reciprocity: many of one's own were held by the other side, and the situation meant that abuse of prisoners risked a great deal for one's own under guard by the enemy.
There was also a much smaller culture clash in Europe. It was, essentially, Europe or Europe-spawned nations fighting each other. Languages and national quirks aside, the most values of the nations involved were (and are) pretty similar.
I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet, so I don't want to bank on nuances that may be present and which some reporters have mentioned. However, if this does indeed close the loophole that has been present for the last several years, it will make me feel a lot better about how evenly the Constitution is applied to US facilities not on US soil. It's my feeling -- and I hope the majority feels the same way -- that effective US soil such as permanent bases and US-government-owned ships at sea should be places where the Constitution applies in full.
I'd not heard of PRT prior to your post. I'm now very interested in it, and I'm wondering if it could be made to work in the LA area. The densest parts of Los Angeles would be rough -- there's not even much room for left-turn lanes, let alone space for this -- but there are plenty of freeways around where this could be mounted, and the streets are wide enough that a raised network of these could work well.
I may toss this at some people at work (county government) and see if I can get the idea seeded. Thank you.
Nope. In order to get things in the LA area up to the level of Chicago or New York, you'd be looking at hundreds of billions of dollars for just this city. After that, you still have Sacramento and San Diego, which don't have quite the same issues as the LA area, but would still be expensive.
This doesn't touch upgrades or installations for other major cities like Denver, Miami, and Las Vegas. The cost of upgrading all of this would be well into the trillions. Whether or not that's being spent elsewhere right now doesn't enter into it much; if the money's not being spent there because the next president ends combat operations, the money simply isn't getting spent. The nation is unlikely to allow for the money to be redirected to what will be seen -- correctly in some cases -- as pork projects. And they're right. The reason for the federal government to maintain an interest in the interstate highway system has to do with promoting and regulating interstate commerce. But I get irritated when they start spending money on much more local projects; I saw a local street repaving recently that had a sign proudly declaring the federal funds spent on it. There's no reason for that.
how much of that $2/gallon margin is taxes added to gasoline that aren't yet added to this fuel?
In the US, not much. The wholesale market price for gasoline is over $3, so of the $4.49 per gallon that I put into my tank today, something less than a dollar went to taxes.
Oil and gas prices are all over the place. Swings of 2% or more in a day are becoming the rule. Right now, gasoline futures for the August contract are about $3.42 per gallon, but that can move in either direction very rapidly these days. Should Congress enact even meager oil legislation in the near future, that could change dramatically. I'm not a supporter of windfall taxes, as it sets up other industries for such taxes on 'excessive' profits (the definition of which seems very nebulous), but I'm not opposed to removing subsidies and certain tax breaks on oil companies nor for reasonable increases in margin requirements for oil traders to curb speculation. After all, if something big does happen and margin calls crush enough investors, the market will tank even harder.
I'm all for all-electric vehicles (or at least high-efficiency pluggable hybrids), but trains and subways just aren't going to happen on a large scale in many areas where they're often considered needed most. In the Los Angeles area, a light rail project intended to run a mere nine miles would have cost over $1 billion. A project the scale of New York's or Chicago's rail system would be prohibitively expensive, to the tune of several tens of billions of dollars. That's just for this one relatively small area, and doesn't count subways, which run about $400 million per mile around here.
I've been to Chicago, and was able to get almost anywhere by combinations of train, bus, and foot, until I wanted to go to a museum that was well out of town. I spent nearly a week there and was in a car only a few times, and that largely for meals in the evening with a friend. But Chicago built the foundation at a time when things were far less expensive, so extensions aren't quite as costly. Despite all of the complaints over spending elsewhere, the money simply isn't there to be able to undertake this on a wide scale where it doesn't already exist.
There are interpretations that believe that all electronic communications must be recorded, so that internal IM conversations would have to be available in case of legal action. Not all Jabber servers offer this.
But like I said, I have enough to do without adding another server to my list anyway. Much easier to get another solution that someone else can handle.:)
I've used it in in-house support and coordination until management blocked the server domain.
The reason that it's often blocked -- and why it's officially blocked where I work -- is because of regulatory concerns over communications that have to be monitored. I've proposed a couple of solutions ranging from Microsoft LCS to Facetime's IM proxy/monitor to allow the environment to get the benefits of IM while covering the lawyers' concerns over risk. I've considered Jabber, but I have enough to do without being the only one available to support an IM server (even if it is relatively hands-off).
However, money is tight (we're a local government in California), and the chances of this happening are slim.
I'm curious about the holding pattern that the planet seems to be experiencing. The last fifteen years' combined land and ocean surface temperatures compared to the 1901-2000 average look like this (based on data from NOAA's NCDC):
A peak was reached in 1998, and another in 2005, but the variation from 2002-2007, excepting 2005, has been minimal, with movement in a range of only 0.0237 degrees. That's barely a twitch. Even factoring in 2005, the range is only 0.0708 degrees over six years. Looking at the graph on their site, I don't see anything approaching this limited range except for maybe circa 1970, but even that was a much wider range. Statistical anomaly? Perhaps. Sign of leveling off? I don't know.
Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of good to come from getting off of fossil fuels, and I'm quite happy to see smaller, more energy-efficient vehicles in the coming years. But I still want the science to be correct.
The main difference -- and several justices, past and present, have said this pretty clearly -- is that they understand that while they may personally agree or disagree with a particular issue brought before the Court, they understand that they must view it through the prism of the Constitution. Using a simplistic case, they may find the American Nazi Party deplorable in its viewpoints, rhetoric, and membership, but this does not preclude their right to speak, to gather peaceably, and to march under the same terms as anyone else.
It's one of the reasons that you find some fairly unexpected splits, like when Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas dissented in Gonzales v. Raich over medical marijuana. In a 6-3 split, Rehnquist joined in O'Connor's dissent and Thomas wrote his own dissent, and both opinions cited the federal structure of the United States as a reason why Congress should not be allowed to regulate the use of marijuana grown for personal purposes and never crossing state lines.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of DC v. Heller. That is one of those that I will be reading as soon as I can get a hold of it.
I know. It's like the ID checks. They're not all that solid, but they're still mandated. But the airlines like them.
One of these days, I'm going to bring some regular water with me in a contact lens solution bottle (these are allowed through) and have one of those powdered tea things in my bag. I just have to get a bottle first, as I don't wear contact lenses. I'm sure I can get a friend who does to give me one, though.
First, please forgive my tone. It was quite late for me at the time. I still do not find the meme in any way amusing, and I actually find it disrespectful, whether done to me or to others, and the basic sentiment stands -- I'd rather my words not be edited to change their meaning. But I was too harsh in the wording.
On to the points at hand. My post was about how it is seen by the courts, not how I personally see it. Here's how I view the flying experience.
My ID is checked twice (at least) along the way to the gate. This doesn't solve much, as a good false ID stands a good chance of getting past the guards. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the check is useless anyway because I can say I don't have my ID and instead go through a pat-down (or get checked using this technology), even if I'm a highly-wanted or criminal. The ID check should probably be scrapped. The airlines like it, though, because they can then block ticket resale.
I go through a metal detector, and my bags are scanned via X-ray and maybe some explosives detection gear. That portion is fine -- enough people would want to slip a bomb through that it's useful.
I can't bring any drinks through, which so far as I've seen is pointless, because I can bring it through in a bottle of contact lens solution. That part should definitely be scrapped.
I have to leave behind anyone who went with me to the airport but who is not flying. I'm of mixed feelings about this, as it moves greeting out to the already-crowded baggage areas, but it also makes it a lot easier to move around in the airport itself. It can be bypassed with a little HTML manipulation of a boarding pass, but that's not for everyone.
I go and sit at the gate for a little while, then board the plane, which has a reinforced cockpit door. This is good, though a little regretful for kids these days who cannot see the cockpit. But again, there are enough people who would like to cause problems that it's a reasonable solution.
Two significant pieces of the security infrastructure can come out because they're easily bypassed, and therefore security theater. That leaves us with what we had in 2000, plus reinforced cockpit doors. I'd be perfectly happy with that, and any presidential candidate who went down that path would get my attention.
But legally speaking, you do not have a right to fly. You have a choice, and that choice is contingent upon you accepting certain requirements. You also have no right to drive -- this is made clear upon getting one's license. If you don't want to drive safely, then you choose not to drive (or else risk tickets or arrest, depending on the violation).
The courts will occasionally allow for limitations which mean someone who does not accept them will have to take some other, less-preferred course of action. Limitations on those, however, will almost always be subject to greater scrutiny. I want security restrictions lifted somewhat, but I also trust the courts to hold open options. In fact, I trust the courts more than any other part of government, because they almost always do the right thing eventually. There are technical exceptions, and there are serious errors in logic (eminent domain comes to mind for recent decisions), but by and large, they're the ones keeping society safe in the long term through an indirect influence.
jo42's number is based on the non-working portion of the population. My number is based on what the BLS uses, which is the number of people looking for work divided by the civilian workforce, which is defined as the number of people working plus the number of people looking for work.
I wouldn't mind if the subsidy were relatively small. But it's not. In order to get Amtrak down to a competitive level, almost the entire ticket would have to be subsidized. That doesn't count that tens of billions more would have to go into rail expansion just to use current technology. And then there's the convenience factor -- I can fly to Dallas in about seven hours, all airport hassle included. I can drive there in two days, or one if I have someone with me. It takes TWO DAYS to get there by train.
Trains are great for hauling vast quantities of cargo long distances, or for regional human transportation. I was upset when a local light rail project that would have run the length of the major county population center was canned because some NIMBYs at the southern end didn't want it. But the cost of making a train even vaguely comparable to air travel for long-distance travel is simply too high.
No. You need to look at the employment report to understand it. That link goes to whatever is the current version of the report at the time (it's issued monthly), though archives are available.
There's a population of about 300 million people in the country. Many of them are retired or too young to be able to work. Some are infirm, others do not need to work. Others simply aren't looking for work. All of these are not counted in the statistics. Everyone else -- those working and those actively looking for work -- are considered the civilian work force. Of them, 5.5% are not employed. That works out to about 8.4 million people. Of these, about 38% have been unemployed for fewer than five weeks. Another 29% have been unemployed for 5-14 weeks, and the remaining have been unemployed for longer than 14 weeks.
The unemployment rate in the Europe Union is even worse than in Canada, at 7%.
Full employment is reached at about 4% unemployment. Anything lower than that, and inflation starts to set in because it becomes a sellers' market. Employers have to come up with exorbitant salaries to hold onto their workers, and it becomes an arms race among the employers, who then have to raise their own prices to avoid taking financial losses. This happened in the last couple of years under Clinton, when the unemployment rate dropped under 4% and things started to get messy.
I'm planning to travel from Los Angeles to Dallas in August. If I make that trip by train, it's approximately 47 hours on the Texas Eagle or 48 hours on a combination of the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. Taking the first, since it's less expensive, I can pay $131 each way for a coach seat. If I want a roomette (essentially a sofa bed), I pay $545 there and $477 on the way back, for a total of $1022, or $996 with a AAA card.
If I rent a compact car and get, say, 28 miles per gallon average driving the trip, it's about 1400 miles (I've driven it before), would take about 20 hours of driving, cost ~$400 for round-trip fuel and $150 for the car rental for the same time period. That comes up to be about $450 less than the train (factoring in the AAA card), and with that $450, I can stay at Marriott hotel rooms on the way there and back, enjoy room service for dinner and breakfast, and still have money left over.
And all this while Amtrak is losing money. At least the companies from which I'm renting the car, buying the gas, and sleeping the night away aren't begging the taxpayers for dollars.
I've been countered with that argument before. It's based on the number of people of working age who are not working. Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process.
The government's numbers are based on surveys, and attempt to determine statistically the number of people who are not working more than a certain number of hours and also are actively seeking full employment (you can regularly work a few hours a week -- I forget the exact number -- and still be considered unemployed for the purposes of the survey).
If you want to voice an opinion that I should have used different phrasing, please do so. If you're going to quote me, then quote my words faithfully. "Fixing" it, even in jest, is altering the quote of my words. The meme isn't funny or clever, and never has been.
The large carriers with strong financial positions are mostly well-hedged against the rising cost of fuel.
And who would this be? You mentioned Delta, American, and United as being in trouble. Add US Airways, Continental, and Northwest, among others. Southwest is only in shape as long as its hedging contracts continue, and at some point, they run out, and then Southwest gets smacked with higher fuel fees. JetBlue's financials have been shaky at best for the last three years, with income after tax only $18 million at the end of 2007, and 2006 and 2005 combining for $21 million in losses. The start of 2008 hasn't been good for them, either, losing $8 million after taxes for the first quarter.
The industry will survive. Even at a diminished capacity and much higher prices, it will survive, though the end results may be new airlines snapping up assets at a tiny price, and contributing to 401(k) programs instead of pensions.
Slashdot Mirror
The mere presence of a large amount of paperwork isn't necessarily enough to show that it's bad. Pharmaceutical and certain engineering patents are often filed with a great deal of supporting information, including information from prior patents that link in to that under submission. Each case should be decided on its merits. Those who repeatedly abuse the system should face consequences.
You've made an interesting concession with the research-based extension, but might this be abused? Even political issues within the FDA -- certainly not unknown -- could result in abuse directed at the patenter, cutting short necessary time to research the compound and effectively killing the drug.
It could be argued -- and I'm aware of the abuse possibilities for this, as well -- that the current patent time encourages further innovation. Two parties want to achieve a similar goal. One files and receives a patent for a method to reach it. The other party has several choices: wait for the patent to run out, license the patent as is, or come up with a method that does not use the existing method and patent the new method to protect it. There is a balancing act to this argument; copyrights are an area where the length of protection is well out of balance to the value that the protection provides to both the copyright holder and society as a whole.
I still don't quite understand why you think that 17 years is too long a time to hold a patent as valid. It's worked relatively well for some time now, and I think that when something works and someone calls to change it, the logic behind the proposed change should be compelling.
They may not take 17 years to reach fruition, but the amount of time that it takes to reach profitability can be many years. A lot of focus is placed on blockbuster drugs like Viagra which made back their research costs in only a couple of years. However, there are many drugs that are for much smaller markets which may take a decade or more to reach their first profits. Because there is a time lag between patent and FDA approval, it's very possible that the time between approval and patent lapse could be three to five years less than the actual patent duration, which can affect a decision on whether to pursue a drug in the first place.
I think 17 years is a good number for patents.
Most reporters are terrified of not being able to get an interview at the next request. Tim was a great example of someone who could rake a guest over the coals and yet have them leaving with the words, "Until next time." And next time could be only a few weeks later.
I always looked forward to how Russert handled interviews and debates. Left or right, loony or sane, one always got a fair hand from him. He'd get on anyone who was hiding something, but I don't know of many who left his presence angry.
He was a rarity in the world of political journalism.
Is the second type faster to don? Current suits require a considerable amount of effort and assistance to get operational.
I have read that Allied prisoners in Europe (except for Soviet POWs) were generally treated well, though perhaps not so well as Axis prisoners were treated. There was a strong reason for this reciprocity: many of one's own were held by the other side, and the situation meant that abuse of prisoners risked a great deal for one's own under guard by the enemy.
There was also a much smaller culture clash in Europe. It was, essentially, Europe or Europe-spawned nations fighting each other. Languages and national quirks aside, the most values of the nations involved were (and are) pretty similar.
I haven't had a chance to read the decision yet, so I don't want to bank on nuances that may be present and which some reporters have mentioned. However, if this does indeed close the loophole that has been present for the last several years, it will make me feel a lot better about how evenly the Constitution is applied to US facilities not on US soil. It's my feeling -- and I hope the majority feels the same way -- that effective US soil such as permanent bases and US-government-owned ships at sea should be places where the Constitution applies in full.
Has this support level changed in the IE8 beta?
I'd not heard of PRT prior to your post. I'm now very interested in it, and I'm wondering if it could be made to work in the LA area. The densest parts of Los Angeles would be rough -- there's not even much room for left-turn lanes, let alone space for this -- but there are plenty of freeways around where this could be mounted, and the streets are wide enough that a raised network of these could work well.
I may toss this at some people at work (county government) and see if I can get the idea seeded. Thank you.
Nope. In order to get things in the LA area up to the level of Chicago or New York, you'd be looking at hundreds of billions of dollars for just this city. After that, you still have Sacramento and San Diego, which don't have quite the same issues as the LA area, but would still be expensive.
This doesn't touch upgrades or installations for other major cities like Denver, Miami, and Las Vegas. The cost of upgrading all of this would be well into the trillions. Whether or not that's being spent elsewhere right now doesn't enter into it much; if the money's not being spent there because the next president ends combat operations, the money simply isn't getting spent. The nation is unlikely to allow for the money to be redirected to what will be seen -- correctly in some cases -- as pork projects. And they're right. The reason for the federal government to maintain an interest in the interstate highway system has to do with promoting and regulating interstate commerce. But I get irritated when they start spending money on much more local projects; I saw a local street repaving recently that had a sign proudly declaring the federal funds spent on it. There's no reason for that.
how much of that $2/gallon margin is taxes added to gasoline that aren't yet added to this fuel?
In the US, not much. The wholesale market price for gasoline is over $3, so of the $4.49 per gallon that I put into my tank today, something less than a dollar went to taxes.
Oil and gas prices are all over the place. Swings of 2% or more in a day are becoming the rule. Right now, gasoline futures for the August contract are about $3.42 per gallon, but that can move in either direction very rapidly these days. Should Congress enact even meager oil legislation in the near future, that could change dramatically. I'm not a supporter of windfall taxes, as it sets up other industries for such taxes on 'excessive' profits (the definition of which seems very nebulous), but I'm not opposed to removing subsidies and certain tax breaks on oil companies nor for reasonable increases in margin requirements for oil traders to curb speculation. After all, if something big does happen and margin calls crush enough investors, the market will tank even harder.
I'm all for all-electric vehicles (or at least high-efficiency pluggable hybrids), but trains and subways just aren't going to happen on a large scale in many areas where they're often considered needed most. In the Los Angeles area, a light rail project intended to run a mere nine miles would have cost over $1 billion. A project the scale of New York's or Chicago's rail system would be prohibitively expensive, to the tune of several tens of billions of dollars. That's just for this one relatively small area, and doesn't count subways, which run about $400 million per mile around here.
I've been to Chicago, and was able to get almost anywhere by combinations of train, bus, and foot, until I wanted to go to a museum that was well out of town. I spent nearly a week there and was in a car only a few times, and that largely for meals in the evening with a friend. But Chicago built the foundation at a time when things were far less expensive, so extensions aren't quite as costly. Despite all of the complaints over spending elsewhere, the money simply isn't there to be able to undertake this on a wide scale where it doesn't already exist.
There are interpretations that believe that all electronic communications must be recorded, so that internal IM conversations would have to be available in case of legal action. Not all Jabber servers offer this.
:)
But like I said, I have enough to do without adding another server to my list anyway. Much easier to get another solution that someone else can handle.
I've used it in in-house support and coordination until management blocked the server domain.
The reason that it's often blocked -- and why it's officially blocked where I work -- is because of regulatory concerns over communications that have to be monitored. I've proposed a couple of solutions ranging from Microsoft LCS to Facetime's IM proxy/monitor to allow the environment to get the benefits of IM while covering the lawyers' concerns over risk. I've considered Jabber, but I have enough to do without being the only one available to support an IM server (even if it is relatively hands-off).
However, money is tight (we're a local government in California), and the chances of this happening are slim.
I'm curious about the holding pattern that the planet seems to be experiencing. The last fifteen years' combined land and ocean surface temperatures compared to the 1901-2000 average look like this (based on data from NOAA's NCDC):
1993 - 0.2227
1994 - 0.2815
1995 - 0.3981
1996 - 0.2586
1997 - 0.4615
1998 - 0.5763
1999 - 0.3947
2000 - 0.3630
2001 - 0.4937
2002 - 0.5574
2003 - 0.5567
2004 - 0.5337
2005 - 0.6045
2006 - 0.5396
2007 - 0.5495
A peak was reached in 1998, and another in 2005, but the variation from 2002-2007, excepting 2005, has been minimal, with movement in a range of only 0.0237 degrees. That's barely a twitch. Even factoring in 2005, the range is only 0.0708 degrees over six years. Looking at the graph on their site, I don't see anything approaching this limited range except for maybe circa 1970, but even that was a much wider range. Statistical anomaly? Perhaps. Sign of leveling off? I don't know.
Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of good to come from getting off of fossil fuels, and I'm quite happy to see smaller, more energy-efficient vehicles in the coming years. But I still want the science to be correct.
The main difference -- and several justices, past and present, have said this pretty clearly -- is that they understand that while they may personally agree or disagree with a particular issue brought before the Court, they understand that they must view it through the prism of the Constitution. Using a simplistic case, they may find the American Nazi Party deplorable in its viewpoints, rhetoric, and membership, but this does not preclude their right to speak, to gather peaceably, and to march under the same terms as anyone else.
It's one of the reasons that you find some fairly unexpected splits, like when Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas dissented in Gonzales v. Raich over medical marijuana. In a 6-3 split, Rehnquist joined in O'Connor's dissent and Thomas wrote his own dissent, and both opinions cited the federal structure of the United States as a reason why Congress should not be allowed to regulate the use of marijuana grown for personal purposes and never crossing state lines.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of DC v. Heller. That is one of those that I will be reading as soon as I can get a hold of it.
But you said "Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process,"
Yes. Under jo42's thought process. Not mine.
I know. It's like the ID checks. They're not all that solid, but they're still mandated. But the airlines like them.
One of these days, I'm going to bring some regular water with me in a contact lens solution bottle (these are allowed through) and have one of those powdered tea things in my bag. I just have to get a bottle first, as I don't wear contact lenses. I'm sure I can get a friend who does to give me one, though.
First, please forgive my tone. It was quite late for me at the time. I still do not find the meme in any way amusing, and I actually find it disrespectful, whether done to me or to others, and the basic sentiment stands -- I'd rather my words not be edited to change their meaning. But I was too harsh in the wording.
On to the points at hand. My post was about how it is seen by the courts, not how I personally see it. Here's how I view the flying experience.
My ID is checked twice (at least) along the way to the gate. This doesn't solve much, as a good false ID stands a good chance of getting past the guards. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the check is useless anyway because I can say I don't have my ID and instead go through a pat-down (or get checked using this technology), even if I'm a highly-wanted or criminal. The ID check should probably be scrapped. The airlines like it, though, because they can then block ticket resale.
I go through a metal detector, and my bags are scanned via X-ray and maybe some explosives detection gear. That portion is fine -- enough people would want to slip a bomb through that it's useful.
I can't bring any drinks through, which so far as I've seen is pointless, because I can bring it through in a bottle of contact lens solution. That part should definitely be scrapped.
I have to leave behind anyone who went with me to the airport but who is not flying. I'm of mixed feelings about this, as it moves greeting out to the already-crowded baggage areas, but it also makes it a lot easier to move around in the airport itself. It can be bypassed with a little HTML manipulation of a boarding pass, but that's not for everyone.
I go and sit at the gate for a little while, then board the plane, which has a reinforced cockpit door. This is good, though a little regretful for kids these days who cannot see the cockpit. But again, there are enough people who would like to cause problems that it's a reasonable solution.
Two significant pieces of the security infrastructure can come out because they're easily bypassed, and therefore security theater. That leaves us with what we had in 2000, plus reinforced cockpit doors. I'd be perfectly happy with that, and any presidential candidate who went down that path would get my attention.
But legally speaking, you do not have a right to fly. You have a choice, and that choice is contingent upon you accepting certain requirements. You also have no right to drive -- this is made clear upon getting one's license. If you don't want to drive safely, then you choose not to drive (or else risk tickets or arrest, depending on the violation).
The courts will occasionally allow for limitations which mean someone who does not accept them will have to take some other, less-preferred course of action. Limitations on those, however, will almost always be subject to greater scrutiny. I want security restrictions lifted somewhat, but I also trust the courts to hold open options. In fact, I trust the courts more than any other part of government, because they almost always do the right thing eventually. There are technical exceptions, and there are serious errors in logic (eminent domain comes to mind for recent decisions), but by and large, they're the ones keeping society safe in the long term through an indirect influence.
You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
jo42's number is based on the non-working portion of the population. My number is based on what the BLS uses, which is the number of people looking for work divided by the civilian workforce, which is defined as the number of people working plus the number of people looking for work.
I wouldn't mind if the subsidy were relatively small. But it's not. In order to get Amtrak down to a competitive level, almost the entire ticket would have to be subsidized. That doesn't count that tens of billions more would have to go into rail expansion just to use current technology. And then there's the convenience factor -- I can fly to Dallas in about seven hours, all airport hassle included. I can drive there in two days, or one if I have someone with me. It takes TWO DAYS to get there by train.
Trains are great for hauling vast quantities of cargo long distances, or for regional human transportation. I was upset when a local light rail project that would have run the length of the major county population center was canned because some NIMBYs at the southern end didn't want it. But the cost of making a train even vaguely comparable to air travel for long-distance travel is simply too high.
No. You need to look at the employment report to understand it. That link goes to whatever is the current version of the report at the time (it's issued monthly), though archives are available.
There's a population of about 300 million people in the country. Many of them are retired or too young to be able to work. Some are infirm, others do not need to work. Others simply aren't looking for work. All of these are not counted in the statistics. Everyone else -- those working and those actively looking for work -- are considered the civilian work force. Of them, 5.5% are not employed. That works out to about 8.4 million people. Of these, about 38% have been unemployed for fewer than five weeks. Another 29% have been unemployed for 5-14 weeks, and the remaining have been unemployed for longer than 14 weeks.
The unemployment rate in the Europe Union is even worse than in Canada, at 7%.
Full employment is reached at about 4% unemployment. Anything lower than that, and inflation starts to set in because it becomes a sellers' market. Employers have to come up with exorbitant salaries to hold onto their workers, and it becomes an arms race among the employers, who then have to raise their own prices to avoid taking financial losses. This happened in the last couple of years under Clinton, when the unemployment rate dropped under 4% and things started to get messy.
I'm planning to travel from Los Angeles to Dallas in August. If I make that trip by train, it's approximately 47 hours on the Texas Eagle or 48 hours on a combination of the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle. Taking the first, since it's less expensive, I can pay $131 each way for a coach seat. If I want a roomette (essentially a sofa bed), I pay $545 there and $477 on the way back, for a total of $1022, or $996 with a AAA card.
If I rent a compact car and get, say, 28 miles per gallon average driving the trip, it's about 1400 miles (I've driven it before), would take about 20 hours of driving, cost ~$400 for round-trip fuel and $150 for the car rental for the same time period. That comes up to be about $450 less than the train (factoring in the AAA card), and with that $450, I can stay at Marriott hotel rooms on the way there and back, enjoy room service for dinner and breakfast, and still have money left over.
And all this while Amtrak is losing money. At least the companies from which I'm renting the car, buying the gas, and sleeping the night away aren't begging the taxpayers for dollars.
I've been countered with that argument before. It's based on the number of people of working age who are not working. Stay-at-home parents, for example, are unemployed under that thought process.
The government's numbers are based on surveys, and attempt to determine statistically the number of people who are not working more than a certain number of hours and also are actively seeking full employment (you can regularly work a few hours a week -- I forget the exact number -- and still be considered unemployed for the purposes of the survey).
If you want to voice an opinion that I should have used different phrasing, please do so. If you're going to quote me, then quote my words faithfully. "Fixing" it, even in jest, is altering the quote of my words. The meme isn't funny or clever, and never has been.
The large carriers with strong financial positions are mostly well-hedged against the rising cost of fuel.
And who would this be? You mentioned Delta, American, and United as being in trouble. Add US Airways, Continental, and Northwest, among others. Southwest is only in shape as long as its hedging contracts continue, and at some point, they run out, and then Southwest gets smacked with higher fuel fees. JetBlue's financials have been shaky at best for the last three years, with income after tax only $18 million at the end of 2007, and 2006 and 2005 combining for $21 million in losses. The start of 2008 hasn't been good for them, either, losing $8 million after taxes for the first quarter.
The industry will survive. Even at a diminished capacity and much higher prices, it will survive, though the end results may be new airlines snapping up assets at a tiny price, and contributing to 401(k) programs instead of pensions.