yes, that is because airports have problems. That has NOTHING to do with airplanes. There is no reason why an airport couldn't be as efficient as a train station.
What you are NOT understanding is that the problem with airplanes has NOTHING to do with airplanes but rather government regulation OF airplanes. Fix the regulation and enjoy the plane. Or pretend that the government regulation is harder to fix then the laws of physicals and fail.
airlines are not subsidized. they actually fund themselves through ticket sales.
Your train will do no such thing. It will be predominantly funded with federal subsidies and state tax dollars.
Further, suggesting that the operating costs will be nil is simply ignorant. The track will be expensive to maintain. The trains themselves will need to be serviced and replaced which tends to be quite expensive especially since there is a smaller market for high speed trains then airplanes... therefore they're comparatively expensive.
The engine car on a regular train can run up to around 5 million dollars. A new passenger jet plane costs about 7 million for the whole plane.
Planes win when it comes to passenger travel over 200 miles.
Now if you want to talk about freight trains, that is a totally different story. Freight trains are great. But they have entirely different business models and are rarely subsidized which tells you their business model is ACTUALLY healthy.
As to the hyperloop going 400-500 miles per hour... I'd have to see that to believe it. And beyond that, I'm mostly talking about california's high speed rail program. That train will go LESS then 200 mph. Less then half the speed of planes.
As to travel occuring between major hubs, you confuse the constraints of the transit system on what people ACTUALLY want to do. Just because people route through international airports for example doesn't mean they actually have any interest in that location. Likewise with rail, just because I get on and off at certain stops doesn't mean those stops have anything to do with my destination. They're merely the best I can do with that system at that time.
A good example of an even more dynamic transit system is the automobile... does everyone route through transit hubs when they're traveling by car? No. They use major highways of course but they try as best possible to get directly from origin to destination which often has nothing to do with transit hubs.
As to weather effects, I'll grant that the hyperloop will be less susceptible to weather. However, it will be entirely dependent on that tube being clear and operational. Air travel networks have no such requirement. A given airport might be closed for weather but 10 miles away everything is fine. The whole network doesn't shut down because there is a problem at one spot. The hyperloop would shut down entirely if part of the tube were damaged or a car got jammed in it or whatever.
As to the hyperloop being superior for California because it operates in all weather conditions... its california. I live in california. We do not have weather issues screw up our airports very often. San Francisco does have a lot of issues mostly because of fog. But 5 miles away from that airport everything is fine. Honestly, Oakland is a better airport. Its a lot cheaper, a lot more reliable, and its not a big deal to commute to it. Whenever I go to SF, I try to land in oakland or some other outlying airport because SF's airport has problems. LA on the other hand does not have weather problems.... ever. So that's a non-issue.
Look, here is my stance on all three modes of travel: The air system maintains itself without subsidization. That is the standard. I am fine with any alternative system which can fund itself entirely through ticket prices and fees placed on tickets without digging into general tax revenue or relying on federal hand outs.
If you idea requires huge sums of outside money not only to build it but to maintain it... then it is not acceptable to me. If the idea is actually useful and needed then you should have no trouble doing that. If you can't then clearly people don't need or want it badly enough to pay for it unless its costs are hidden.
That's fine. Under what I said, you would buy a console form factor PC that looks like a console and has a GUI like a console. Totally indistinguishable from a console IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. So you wouldn't notice the difference.
Someone like me... well, I want all my programs to work on all my machines if they're powerful enough to run them. And my idea here would facilitate that.
Further, it would make the windows phone competitive if it could run most windows software natively on the phone.
Look, justify making these systems incompatible with each other? You want to have a console that looks like a console for games and feels like a console? Fine. No problem with it. But that isn't mutually exclusive with my point.
To be a jet pack, I need to be able to carry it on my back. Walk around with it, and then take to the sky at will.
That was the dream of the jet pack. That it would give a person the ability to walk around and then leap into the sky at will.
This thing does fly... but you can't really walk with it.
Its sort of like calling something a sea plane when it can't float. Yeah... it might fly... but... if it sinks when it hits the water its not a sea plane.
All of these things should just be the PC in different shapes.
PCs can run games as well or FAR better then any console. Release an inexpensive standardized gaming PC that is of console form factor and with a customized GUI for living room use. Anything that works on the machine will work on any appropriately powerful PC. And nearly all games that work on PC will automatically work on that machine. Instantly better.
Windows phone should be a version of windows that is fully compatible with other windows software. There is no technical reason why it couldn't do that. We saw some people get windows XP to run on some android phones which means if MS tried they should get a slimmed down version of windows to run on the phone. Again, give it a phone GUI with a big emphasis on making calls and texting really easy. And boom. Android apps doesn't hold a candle to the full breadth of the PC application market.
Exactly. In trips over 200 miles air beats everything.
And over shorter distances... cars are typically better even then trains... assuming the roads aren't horribly snarled by decades of idiot transit planning that starved roads to feed under used and unwanted rail lines that don't handle 1/10th the traffic.
As to numbers, I can only assume he's basing his projections on long commute times to airports which his system wouldn't have because the transit lines would link up properly... and is assuming that the TSA will remain a problem where as his hyperloop won't have a TSA policing it.
Both points create a false premise.
1. You cannot count the poor commute time against airports since there is nothing intrinsic about them that makes them bad for commuting. They are bad for commuting because the cities have systematically starved them of mass transit links to force you to use a cab/taxi. If you want to compare Musk's hyperloop you'd have to do it under equal conditions since it is not the plane's fault that the city sabotages the link.
2. Why does an airplane need the TSA but his tube doesn't? Can you image what a bomb would do in that thing? Not only would it kill people but you'd shut the whole system down until it was fixed.
How many airplanes need to crash to make air travel impossible?
All of them.
Airplanes are a more robust medium less vulnerable to terrorism.
As to spouting the first thing that comes to my mind to make myself feel clever... not required. I am smart. Probably a lot smarter then you... no offense. Just felt the point needed to be made since you presumed to brow beat me.
My argument is sound and self evident. Airplanes are VASTLY superior in so many ways.
Cheaper. Cheaper. Cheaper. Saying it three times because the cost difference is immense. Faster. Planes put bullet trains to shame. More flexible. Any airport in range of the fuel VS a linear track forwards and back. More reliable. The air network has redundancies built in. A plane is down for mechanical problems, another takes up the slack. Train dies on the track... whole line is shut down until a maintenance engine can move it off the track. And then all the passengers are bused to their station of choice. Less infrastructure. An airport in every city/major town versus thousands upon thousands of miles of track with various stations along the way. Less land usage. All that track sits on land that has to accommodate the train now. Property values fall etc.
The high speed rail idea between LA and SF is a stupid idea designed to trick stupid people into funneling cash into a boondoggle. The hyperrail by comparison is an amusing joke mostly because it won't get built. That is the punch line... its less nutty then what we're doing now and it won't get built.
Except for its not cheaper because the rail is subsidized which means basically someone else is paying part of your ticket fair. You could obtain the same result by subsidizing your airplane ticket. Only it would be cheaper because maintaining a rail system really is quite expensive.
Rail makes sense over short distances or if its cargo/freight rail... but passenger rail over long distances makes no sense and is always more expensive unless you're maintaining the rail with slave labor. And even then it is questionable.
Airplanes are inexpensive. Much of their cost is actually airport fees. That is, the airport charges planes for the privilege of landing there. And those costs radically increase ticket prices. When you go from one high cost airport to another you may effectively pay this fee twice.
Rail doesn't have that issue. You don't have expensive and cheap rail stops. You're charged basically by the distance traveled and nothing else. If you did the same thing with airplanes prices would be a good deal lower.
Part of the problem with that is that the airports are owned by cities. In many cases the airports run at surpluses. That is the airport makes more money then it costs. And the city puts that money into the general fund to spend on "anything"...
Consider what would happen if airports didn't do that. If instead, costs were based upon what it actually cost to run the airport and the administration of the airport were run not by the city but rather by the airlines.
Costs would be MUCH lower. Cities won't give that up because they make money. But it tells you where the problem is here.
Yes, tsa is terrible. Yes, the mass transit doesn't connect to the airports.
What is easier... reforming the TSA which has to happen in any case since it is a national problem AND moving mass transit to ACTUALLY connect to airports....
OR building a high speed rail line from LA to SF?
The question is rhetorical. The TSA needs to be reformed. And the mass transit situation is a disgrace.
We do not need a line from these two points. We need our air network fixed.
As to european cities... the US operates on a completely different scale and density. Most major european cities are closer together then they are in the US. Which is why passenger rail makes less sense here.
Air is faster. Air is cheaper. Air is more efficient.
The problem is the buses and trains do not connect to the airports due to corruption with the taxis AND the TSA is run by people that think the point is to waste everyone's time as much as possible rather then simply screen out the.00001 percent of travelers that need to rubber roomed.
to a massive state/federal boondoggle that is way over budget and was a terrible idea in the first place.
California doesn't need high speed rail between san francisco and LA. We have "planes"... they're faster, go to more locations, are much cheaper, and involve very low comparative infrastructure.
Both the train and hyperloop would require building this thing. Why would we do that?
Are airports terrible? Yes. Thank you 9/11. Airports are terrible. The TSA is terrible. But that doesn't mean we go back to trains. It means you fix the f'ing airports or consider building more mass transit in LA that ACTUALLY connects to LAX.
A major issue throughout the US is that mass transit frequently doesn't connect to airports. Why? Taxis. They get a license to run their taxis in the cities and its a lot of money. And when push comes to shove... the cities would rather keep the taxi companies happy then give people reliable mass transit.
Now... Assuming you can but a muzzle on the TSA. Assuming you can ACTUALLY build mass transit to the airport hubs... Why would that not be superior to the high speed train/hyperloop idea?
It would be superior. Planes are faster, cheaper, more flexible, involve less infrastructure...
Passenger trains make sense over very short distances. In distances over 200 miles they stop making sense for PASSENGER travel. Now, cargo trains... that's a different story. But guess what kids... the distance between SF and LA exceeds 200 miles... its a dumb idea.
At this point, the only people supporting the high speed train in California are the ignorant that don't know enough to have an opinion and the corrupt feeding like boated ticks on the stimulus money.
No one else supports it.
As to the hyperloop... sounds like a good idea... in a cartoon. In the real world?.... comically awful for so many reasons. Stick with the planes.
... Did a dr who fan just threaten to beat me up or imply that he could have done so in some theoretical high school?
If you want to play that game... I'm pretty sure the varsity baseball team would have been very happy to work you over for even attempting it. But whatever, bro. You doubtless didn't intend to throw out a threat but it came off that way. Might want to watch that.
Regards from someone that would just like decent writing in television. As in... actually f'ing try.
I watch a lot of british programming... and I like science fiction... I even like British science fiction.
Dr Who however isn't really science fiction. There's no science in it. It isn't logical or rational. It poses no interesting questions philosophical, logistical, or metaphysical. Its just this endless stream of nonsense with the punch line always being "I"M THE DOCTOR"... and then more incoherent babble follows.
Now that is clearly not for me. I wanted to know why this is for anyone else?
I love Douglas Adams and Red Dwarf... but Dr Who... Don't get it.
I consume a lot of british television. I'm what you might call an anglophile. So that doesn't wash.
If anything, my experience with that raised my standards of what I should expect from it.
The writing is BAD. Look at the dialog and tell me its good. Then look at the stories... the plots. Find me a good one. What about the characters. Is the doctor a good character? What about his various hangers on?
Look, people apparently like the show so my opinion doesn't really matter. But what is the draw to it? Honestly?
You missed the part where I pointed out that the effect on the environment is literally undetectable. Lead is a naturally occurring trace element in drinking water. Not much usually... but out of well water especially it is pretty common. And totally harmless unless in greater concentrations. And lead bullets won't increase that concentration unless you drink out of lead pipes day in and day out for most of your life.
takes two tango friend. you don't compromise either.
And when two sides don't compromise in our system, the system locks.
Now you got fed up with that so you pulled a fast one. You claimed authority you didn't have and now you're reaping the consequences of running roughshod over me.
On top of that, you were so hell for leather to pass the bill that you did it incompetently.
now if you want to get all political and partisan... I can bury your political movement with this bill. Its getting worse and worse and your name is on it. Not mine.
So you can either wise up and kill it with what little dignity you have left. OR... we can play political games and your political faction gets annihilated.
Choose. Your stupidity has outright terrified the american people. Businesses are shutting down over this. people are losing their jobs. And all you have to contribute is more mindless blind stupidity. Fine.
That's fine. Argue for that and we'll consider it.
In the mean time, there is no excuse for continuing with a law that is broken. It will have a net negative impact on every segment of US society in one way or another. It is now exclusively supported by political partisans that would rather win then be right and idiots that get cross eyed thinking of numbers over 2.
Obamacare failing doesn't serve anyone's interests. And it won't succeed. Its too poorly set up to do anything but fail.
So if you want socialized medicine... this will only make your idea appear stupid or your political allies too inept to execute such a plan.
If you don't want socialized medical care this will effectively give it to you anyway... but it will be even more expensive... badly run... and generally all the negatives will be more negative.
So lets not do this... kill it and restart the debate on it. Does that mean the supporters will have to ACTUALLY get support for their program this time instead of sneaking it through? Yes. But they should have done that in the first place and this is so screwed up in large part because they broke the rules.
I know what the supporters are going to say... that they followed the letter of the law. Possibly by the narrowest possible definition. But you know damn well that you broke the spirit of the law in half getting there.
That said, that isn't the point of my post. My point is that indifferent to all that, Obamacare is unfixable. It needs to be put down like a rabid dog and THEN we can evaluate what our options are after that. But causing American insurance premiums to double is not in any one's interest. Stop it.
If you care about the poor. Stop it. If you care about jobs. Stop it. If you care about the country. Stop it.
At this point, the only reason to support it is ego... aka fear of looking like a fool after investing so much political capital into the issue... or ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, that is because airports have problems. That has NOTHING to do with airplanes. There is no reason why an airport couldn't be as efficient as a train station.
What you are NOT understanding is that the problem with airplanes has NOTHING to do with airplanes but rather government regulation OF airplanes. Fix the regulation and enjoy the plane. Or pretend that the government regulation is harder to fix then the laws of physicals and fail.
Choice is yours.
airlines are not subsidized. they actually fund themselves through ticket sales.
Your train will do no such thing. It will be predominantly funded with federal subsidies and state tax dollars.
Further, suggesting that the operating costs will be nil is simply ignorant. The track will be expensive to maintain. The trains themselves will need to be serviced and replaced which tends to be quite expensive especially since there is a smaller market for high speed trains then airplanes... therefore they're comparatively expensive.
The engine car on a regular train can run up to around 5 million dollars. A new passenger jet plane costs about 7 million for the whole plane.
Planes win when it comes to passenger travel over 200 miles.
Now if you want to talk about freight trains, that is a totally different story. Freight trains are great. But they have entirely different business models and are rarely subsidized which tells you their business model is ACTUALLY healthy.
As to the hyperloop going 400-500 miles per hour... I'd have to see that to believe it. And beyond that, I'm mostly talking about california's high speed rail program. That train will go LESS then 200 mph. Less then half the speed of planes.
As to travel occuring between major hubs, you confuse the constraints of the transit system on what people ACTUALLY want to do. Just because people route through international airports for example doesn't mean they actually have any interest in that location. Likewise with rail, just because I get on and off at certain stops doesn't mean those stops have anything to do with my destination. They're merely the best I can do with that system at that time.
A good example of an even more dynamic transit system is the automobile... does everyone route through transit hubs when they're traveling by car? No. They use major highways of course but they try as best possible to get directly from origin to destination which often has nothing to do with transit hubs.
As to weather effects, I'll grant that the hyperloop will be less susceptible to weather. However, it will be entirely dependent on that tube being clear and operational. Air travel networks have no such requirement. A given airport might be closed for weather but 10 miles away everything is fine. The whole network doesn't shut down because there is a problem at one spot. The hyperloop would shut down entirely if part of the tube were damaged or a car got jammed in it or whatever.
As to the hyperloop being superior for California because it operates in all weather conditions... its california. I live in california. We do not have weather issues screw up our airports very often. San Francisco does have a lot of issues mostly because of fog. But 5 miles away from that airport everything is fine. Honestly, Oakland is a better airport. Its a lot cheaper, a lot more reliable, and its not a big deal to commute to it. Whenever I go to SF, I try to land in oakland or some other outlying airport because SF's airport has problems. LA on the other hand does not have weather problems.... ever. So that's a non-issue.
Look, here is my stance on all three modes of travel:
The air system maintains itself without subsidization. That is the standard. I am fine with any alternative system which can fund itself entirely through ticket prices and fees placed on tickets without digging into general tax revenue or relying on federal hand outs.
If you idea requires huge sums of outside money not only to build it but to maintain it... then it is not acceptable to me. If the idea is actually useful and needed then you should have no trouble doing that. If you can't then clearly people don't need or want it badly enough to pay for it unless its costs are hidden.
Obama wants to delay the effect of his healthcare bill until after the election so that voters don't get angry and punish the democrats for it.
That is all it is... nothing more or less.
That's fine. Under what I said, you would buy a console form factor PC that looks like a console and has a GUI like a console. Totally indistinguishable from a console IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. So you wouldn't notice the difference.
Someone like me... well, I want all my programs to work on all my machines if they're powerful enough to run them. And my idea here would facilitate that.
Further, it would make the windows phone competitive if it could run most windows software natively on the phone.
Look, justify making these systems incompatible with each other? You want to have a console that looks like a console for games and feels like a console? Fine. No problem with it. But that isn't mutually exclusive with my point.
To be a jet pack, I need to be able to carry it on my back. Walk around with it, and then take to the sky at will.
That was the dream of the jet pack. That it would give a person the ability to walk around and then leap into the sky at will.
This thing does fly... but you can't really walk with it.
Its sort of like calling something a sea plane when it can't float. Yeah... it might fly... but... if it sinks when it hits the water its not a sea plane.
This isn't a jet pack. Try again.
Seriously... it might be out there... but I love it.
If you want to keep tabs on a user. Ask them first.
Stop walking up to people on the street and putting sticky notes on their backs when they're not looking.
The xbox should not exist.
The windows phone should not exist.
Surface should not exist.
All of these things should just be the PC in different shapes.
PCs can run games as well or FAR better then any console. Release an inexpensive standardized gaming PC that is of console form factor and with a customized GUI for living room use. Anything that works on the machine will work on any appropriately powerful PC. And nearly all games that work on PC will automatically work on that machine. Instantly better.
Windows phone should be a version of windows that is fully compatible with other windows software. There is no technical reason why it couldn't do that. We saw some people get windows XP to run on some android phones which means if MS tried they should get a slimmed down version of windows to run on the phone. Again, give it a phone GUI with a big emphasis on making calls and texting really easy. And boom. Android apps doesn't hold a candle to the full breadth of the PC application market.
Surface... same as above.
wrong.
Density in japan is different and the distances are mostly shorter. So... wrong.
Planes travel at about 500 mph. The japanese bullet train travels at LESS then 200 mph.
Planes win. Suck it.
Misread you then.
Exactly. In trips over 200 miles air beats everything.
And over shorter distances... cars are typically better even then trains... assuming the roads aren't horribly snarled by decades of idiot transit planning that starved roads to feed under used and unwanted rail lines that don't handle 1/10th the traffic.
As to numbers, I can only assume he's basing his projections on long commute times to airports which his system wouldn't have because the transit lines would link up properly... and is assuming that the TSA will remain a problem where as his hyperloop won't have a TSA policing it.
Both points create a false premise.
1. You cannot count the poor commute time against airports since there is nothing intrinsic about them that makes them bad for commuting. They are bad for commuting because the cities have systematically starved them of mass transit links to force you to use a cab/taxi. If you want to compare Musk's hyperloop you'd have to do it under equal conditions since it is not the plane's fault that the city sabotages the link.
2. Why does an airplane need the TSA but his tube doesn't? Can you image what a bomb would do in that thing? Not only would it kill people but you'd shut the whole system down until it was fixed.
How many airplanes need to crash to make air travel impossible?
All of them.
Airplanes are a more robust medium less vulnerable to terrorism.
As to spouting the first thing that comes to my mind to make myself feel clever... not required. I am smart. Probably a lot smarter then you... no offense. Just felt the point needed to be made since you presumed to brow beat me.
My argument is sound and self evident. Airplanes are VASTLY superior in so many ways.
Cheaper.
Cheaper.
Cheaper. Saying it three times because the cost difference is immense.
Faster. Planes put bullet trains to shame.
More flexible. Any airport in range of the fuel VS a linear track forwards and back.
More reliable. The air network has redundancies built in. A plane is down for mechanical problems, another takes up the slack. Train dies on the track... whole line is shut down until a maintenance engine can move it off the track. And then all the passengers are bused to their station of choice.
Less infrastructure. An airport in every city/major town versus thousands upon thousands of miles of track with various stations along the way.
Less land usage. All that track sits on land that has to accommodate the train now. Property values fall etc.
The high speed rail idea between LA and SF is a stupid idea designed to trick stupid people into funneling cash into a boondoggle. The hyperrail by comparison is an amusing joke mostly because it won't get built. That is the punch line... its less nutty then what we're doing now and it won't get built.
Totally predictable.
Except for its not cheaper because the rail is subsidized which means basically someone else is paying part of your ticket fair. You could obtain the same result by subsidizing your airplane ticket. Only it would be cheaper because maintaining a rail system really is quite expensive.
Rail makes sense over short distances or if its cargo/freight rail... but passenger rail over long distances makes no sense and is always more expensive unless you're maintaining the rail with slave labor. And even then it is questionable.
Airplanes are inexpensive. Much of their cost is actually airport fees. That is, the airport charges planes for the privilege of landing there. And those costs radically increase ticket prices. When you go from one high cost airport to another you may effectively pay this fee twice.
Rail doesn't have that issue. You don't have expensive and cheap rail stops. You're charged basically by the distance traveled and nothing else. If you did the same thing with airplanes prices would be a good deal lower.
Part of the problem with that is that the airports are owned by cities. In many cases the airports run at surpluses. That is the airport makes more money then it costs. And the city puts that money into the general fund to spend on "anything"...
Consider what would happen if airports didn't do that. If instead, costs were based upon what it actually cost to run the airport and the administration of the airport were run not by the city but rather by the airlines.
Costs would be MUCH lower. Cities won't give that up because they make money. But it tells you where the problem is here.
Stupidity and greed.
Yes, tsa is terrible. Yes, the mass transit doesn't connect to the airports.
What is easier... reforming the TSA which has to happen in any case since it is a national problem AND moving mass transit to ACTUALLY connect to airports....
OR building a high speed rail line from LA to SF?
The question is rhetorical. The TSA needs to be reformed. And the mass transit situation is a disgrace.
We do not need a line from these two points. We need our air network fixed.
As to european cities... the US operates on a completely different scale and density. Most major european cities are closer together then they are in the US. Which is why passenger rail makes less sense here.
Air is faster. Air is cheaper. Air is more efficient.
The problem is the buses and trains do not connect to the airports due to corruption with the taxis AND the TSA is run by people that think the point is to waste everyone's time as much as possible rather then simply screen out the .00001 percent of travelers that need to rubber roomed.
to a massive state/federal boondoggle that is way over budget and was a terrible idea in the first place.
California doesn't need high speed rail between san francisco and LA. We have "planes"... they're faster, go to more locations, are much cheaper, and involve very low comparative infrastructure.
Both the train and hyperloop would require building this thing. Why would we do that?
Are airports terrible? Yes. Thank you 9/11. Airports are terrible. The TSA is terrible. But that doesn't mean we go back to trains. It means you fix the f'ing airports or consider building more mass transit in LA that ACTUALLY connects to LAX.
A major issue throughout the US is that mass transit frequently doesn't connect to airports. Why? Taxis. They get a license to run their taxis in the cities and its a lot of money. And when push comes to shove... the cities would rather keep the taxi companies happy then give people reliable mass transit.
Now... Assuming you can but a muzzle on the TSA. Assuming you can ACTUALLY build mass transit to the airport hubs... Why would that not be superior to the high speed train/hyperloop idea?
It would be superior. Planes are faster, cheaper, more flexible, involve less infrastructure...
Passenger trains make sense over very short distances. In distances over 200 miles they stop making sense for PASSENGER travel. Now, cargo trains... that's a different story. But guess what kids... the distance between SF and LA exceeds 200 miles... its a dumb idea.
At this point, the only people supporting the high speed train in California are the ignorant that don't know enough to have an opinion and the corrupt feeding like boated ticks on the stimulus money.
No one else supports it.
As to the hyperloop... sounds like a good idea... in a cartoon. In the real world?.... comically awful for so many reasons. Stick with the planes.
Problem solved. All arguments to the contrary will be filed in the circular filing cabinet.
Good, someone already did it.
... Did a dr who fan just threaten to beat me up or imply that he could have done so in some theoretical high school?
If you want to play that game... I'm pretty sure the varsity baseball team would have been very happy to work you over for even attempting it. But whatever, bro. You doubtless didn't intend to throw out a threat but it came off that way. Might want to watch that.
Regards from someone that would just like decent writing in television. As in... actually f'ing try.
I watch a lot of british programming... and I like science fiction... I even like British science fiction.
Dr Who however isn't really science fiction. There's no science in it. It isn't logical or rational. It poses no interesting questions philosophical, logistical, or metaphysical. Its just this endless stream of nonsense with the punch line always being "I"M THE DOCTOR"... and then more incoherent babble follows.
Now that is clearly not for me. I wanted to know why this is for anyone else?
I love Douglas Adams and Red Dwarf... but Dr Who... Don't get it.
I consume a lot of british television. I'm what you might call an anglophile. So that doesn't wash.
If anything, my experience with that raised my standards of what I should expect from it.
The writing is BAD. Look at the dialog and tell me its good. Then look at the stories... the plots. Find me a good one. What about the characters. Is the doctor a good character? What about his various hangers on?
Look, people apparently like the show so my opinion doesn't really matter. But what is the draw to it? Honestly?
Okay... I can accept a show having low standards. But what are its good points? I don't get the point of the show. It just seems bad.
It seems awful to me. The writing is bad. The characters are bad. The plots are bad. The props/special effects are bad.
Is it something we Ironically like because its so bad or does it have good aspects I've over looked?
Don't get me wrong. I love science fiction. But this seems like garbage.
Anyone have an idea as to what I'm missing here?
You missed the part where I pointed out that the effect on the environment is literally undetectable. Lead is a naturally occurring trace element in drinking water. Not much usually... but out of well water especially it is pretty common. And totally harmless unless in greater concentrations. And lead bullets won't increase that concentration unless you drink out of lead pipes day in and day out for most of your life.
takes two tango friend. you don't compromise either.
And when two sides don't compromise in our system, the system locks.
Now you got fed up with that so you pulled a fast one. You claimed authority you didn't have and now you're reaping the consequences of running roughshod over me.
On top of that, you were so hell for leather to pass the bill that you did it incompetently.
now if you want to get all political and partisan... I can bury your political movement with this bill. Its getting worse and worse and your name is on it. Not mine.
So you can either wise up and kill it with what little dignity you have left. OR... we can play political games and your political faction gets annihilated.
Choose. Your stupidity has outright terrified the american people. Businesses are shutting down over this. people are losing their jobs. And all you have to contribute is more mindless blind stupidity. Fine.
You lose.
That's fine. Argue for that and we'll consider it.
In the mean time, there is no excuse for continuing with a law that is broken. It will have a net negative impact on every segment of US society in one way or another. It is now exclusively supported by political partisans that would rather win then be right and idiots that get cross eyed thinking of numbers over 2.
Obamacare failing doesn't serve anyone's interests. And it won't succeed. Its too poorly set up to do anything but fail.
So if you want socialized medicine... this will only make your idea appear stupid or your political allies too inept to execute such a plan.
If you don't want socialized medical care this will effectively give it to you anyway... but it will be even more expensive... badly run... and generally all the negatives will be more negative.
So lets not do this... kill it and restart the debate on it. Does that mean the supporters will have to ACTUALLY get support for their program this time instead of sneaking it through? Yes. But they should have done that in the first place and this is so screwed up in large part because they broke the rules.
I know what the supporters are going to say... that they followed the letter of the law. Possibly by the narrowest possible definition. But you know damn well that you broke the spirit of the law in half getting there.
That said, that isn't the point of my post. My point is that indifferent to all that, Obamacare is unfixable. It needs to be put down like a rabid dog and THEN we can evaluate what our options are after that. But causing American insurance premiums to double is not in any one's interest. Stop it.
If you care about the poor. Stop it.
If you care about jobs. Stop it.
If you care about the country. Stop it.
At this point, the only reason to support it is ego... aka fear of looking like a fool after investing so much political capital into the issue... or ignorance.
That's all that's left.