with this technology you have a sound basis for a middling james bond movie cum car commercial involving halle berry, icelandic henchman, and rogue north korean generals
whose only chance to have any social interaction with that superhot chick is when she needs him to teach her how to configure tor, or that anoymous proxy, or even just rdp
so please slashdot, for the sake of geek kinship, just let this whole issue slide
leave the poor 14 year old geek's only source of social capital in the brutal world of high school society intact
the comments here act as if this is the last television upgrade ever
give it time people, calm the fuck down. everyone understands your complaints before you even speak them as your complaints really aren't that insightful but rather obvious
if you have to meet someone shady behind an alley to get [x] versus walking into your average walmart to get [x], it might be that one world has more of [x] than the other
i leave it up to your boundless imagination and massive intellect to imagine which world that might be
you act in good faith, so all i can offer is good faith of my own:
"I WANT to see a new era grow forth, and my post was a concern on why this is not happening after ten years of mindless arguing from both the biz and the filesharing community"
#1: there is no compatibility between the two communities, nor will there ever be
#2: one community's argument is nothing more than "why am i dying?"
there is no rapprochement between the transcribing monk and the printing press
all that happens is one dies, and the other lives
just say goodbye to the biz. its dying, and has no way not to die. thus its insane measures. it has a warchest, and all it is fighting is its own obsolescence
"it is a shame that the internet came and replaced my business model"
the internet is nothing but a superior distribution model that, fortunately for us, unfortunately for those invested in the old school, has no financial impetus. artists can distribute directly to their fans, without any filter in between
all music files are nowadays are nothing more than ad fliers for the artist's next show. revenue is made in ancillary streams: live shows, endorsements, etc. yes, this financial world is a lot smaller than the old one. and? why should we care there is less money involved? i am supposed to feel bad my artist will make $100,000 rather than $1,000,000? or rather, that my favorite artist's distributor makes $0 now instead of $10,000,000? besides, my favorite artist sits atop a pyramid of lesser artists who made pennies under the old model while their distributor reaped it all. and the lesser artists will actually make more under the new model, since there's no distributor to own and lord over their financial lives. the only artists who really suffer in the new model are the extremely well established artists: your metallica, your prince, your britney spears, your jay z. the highly-established artist who has muscled into the distribution model surrounding him
let's all shed a tear for fifty cent and the beatles
who fucking cares they will now make millions rather than billions
all that is dying is the old school distribution and financial model. everything else is upside
i mean it is a shame that the printing press put all those hardworking transcribing monks out of business too, but what are we supposed to do for those monks other than simply mourn their passing?
i mourn the passing of your era. that's all i have for you
as if hamilton or madison didn't know what they were inviting?
as if hamilton or madison expected protection from the crown?
you say that my attitude is akin to the attitude of kind george the third goons. no, rather my attitude is to say that king george has goons that don't respect you, and never will, and you should know that. when you criticize me for this, you're simply shooting the messenger
do you think the answer is to hold the goons to some sort of expectation of behavior?
the american revolution would have been unnecessary if king george's goons were nice and behaved? pfffffffft
the solution is to stop caring about what you send out there. and if you care about it, don't send it out there
most of it is useless anyways, and lost in a sea of other random crap from other people
it is a symptom of people imagining little tidbits of their lives to be far more important than it is. its selective, false, self-congratulatory outrage
how could you define it as anything other than simple democracy at work? the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated. that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense. thus, its inevitable. with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed. enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crockett era. in other words, the continued free ownership of guns is the oligarchical, authoritarian existence you refer to. rural folk's influence on our laws is already out of proportion. due to the senate, for one, but also due to simple lag, the laws lagging behind the times. and if you think its unfair that rural folks hould ever suffer due to laws that make life easier for urban folk, remember: gun ownership is nothing more than a pact to let thousands of urban folk die for the sake of your quaint antiquated gun hobby. where's the oligarchy now buddy?
"at some point one needs to consider how the people live rather than how many die. Being servants of the state or victims of the largest, meanest group aren't exactly desirable outcomes"
i agree 100%. i no longer want to a victim of low iq hotheads with guns. i wish to live free of that scourge
as for prohibition, if something is illegal, less people can get it. do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do. marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent. of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street. we're talking about the ease of ownership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths. what the hell is more important than that? some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy? some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
"As for your statement that guns do not protect democracy (I think you meant a republic), I think you ought to take a look at our very own Revolutionary War. Do you think the Continental Army would ever have been able to defeat a world-class army if nearly every able-bodied male didn't have a gun and know how to use it? You say I'm confusing the arena of a civil setting with outright war. In order to protect freedom, one must be able to stage an outright war (see American Revolution again)."
really?
this is a nice fantasy life. what the fuck does it have to do with reality?
you know, red dawn wasn't a bad movie
neither was star wars
BOTH OF WHICH ARE FUCKING FICTIONAL FANTASIES
all your retarded fantasy life results in is thousands of needless deaths due to random retards on the street with guns
so you put wagner's ride of valkyries on repeat mode and fantasy about protecting the usa from assorted imaginary land invasions. please keep your fucking fantasy life out of my public policy. thanks
do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do
marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent
of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street
we're talking about the ease of onwership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths
what the hell is more important than that?
some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy?
some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated
that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense
thus, its inevitable
with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed
enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crocket era
is something that impinges on my freedom. in the form of assholes walking around with implements of death on my streets
i don't see yokels in the woods with guns as some bastion of protection of democracy. i see yokels in the woods with guns as the soil form which the next fascist will to power rises and seizes civil society
guns do not protect democracy, in a CIVIL setting. they are perfectly valid in arenas of outright war, but thats not civil society... yes, i understand some of you deluded types confuse the two arenas, which is my whole point in saying i don't trust you with guns on my streets. guns destroy democracy, guns are a threat to our freedoms, not a protection of them
what freedom am i talking about? our right to fucking live, protected from deluded assholes with assault rifles and a schizophrenic dirty harry complex
or the feds snooping, i am really frankly surprised
you actually want to depend upon the federal government for your security?
you want to depend upon some school, some cable company, some phone company not to snoop on you?
whenever i'm encountered by this strange slashdot groupthink, i really have only one thing to offer: if you put it on a wire, if its outside your control, then the security or privacy of whatever you are doing is nothing you should count on
the outrage seems artifical, contrived, illogical, exasperating
if you want security, if you want privacy DON'T PUT IT ON A WIRE OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL
beginning and ending of discussion
as if you actually want ot TRUST some other entity to do your security work for you?
hey, how about this: YOU are responsible for your security
you, and you alone
is my pov really that strange?
it seems odd anyone should consider it any other way
listen carefully to what i am saying, as i have already said this and you are not demonstrating a capacity to listen or comprehend:
if you wish to destroy something and replace it with something else, you are still a nihilist if you have no articulation of what that "something else" is
if i see a house and i say i want to tear it down and replace it with "beauty", you are a most definitely nothing more than a demolisher, until that time that you build something else
what was supposed to replace the moral system he said needed replacing. all he did was refer to a "superman", which basically is nothing more than a synonym for the god he was supposedly destroying. nietzsche is mediocre, teenage-level psychology. that explains his popularity, but you can't take him seriously, because his effect IS simple nihilism, even if he never actively espouses that, because he never articulates a valid alternative to what he said needed replacing
in essence, he comes back to where he started: a believer in god. calling god superman is not an amazing philosophical contribution. all the idea of god ever was, and ever will be, is simply an idealization of what man can become. whoop de friggin doo
nietsche is kind of like freud: extremely popular and influential, but essentially 100% bogus
if you belittle my philosophy in any way, its just because "you say so", not because you have any valid logical reason to object
whu?! howabout i have a valid coherent logical reason to object that i can articulate in logical reasonable terms. fair enough?
ok: defining what a "superman" is in logically coherent terms as expansive as the moral system it is supposed to replace would have value
otherwise, what nietzsche is doing is what every teenager does: destroy his faith in his society to have some psychological mobility, then rebuild it later as he settles down in adulthood. its a classic psychological developmental arc. nietzsche's entire arc of intellectual discovery is simply the average teenage philosphical experience. he destroys god... then rebuilds him, calling him "superman", but defining "superman" as essentially the same thing as the god he destroyed. all god is, and ever was, was a simple idealization of what mankind can become. wow, what an amazing philosophical contribution. zzz
nietzsche is mediocre. his popularity stems simply from the resonance he shares with teenage psychology. anyone who matures past the teenage years feels no real affinity for anything nietzsche ruminates about. (where "teenage years" refers to a psychological condition, not an actual chronological time period: plenty of 40 year olds are still psychologically teenagers)
Slashdot Mirror
with this technology you have a sound basis for a middling james bond movie cum car commercial involving halle berry, icelandic henchman, and rogue north korean generals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Another_Day
whose only chance to have any social interaction with that superhot chick is when she needs him to teach her how to configure tor, or that anoymous proxy, or even just rdp
so please slashdot, for the sake of geek kinship, just let this whole issue slide
leave the poor 14 year old geek's only source of social capital in the brutal world of high school society intact
this is just an opening salvo
the comments here act as if this is the last television upgrade ever
give it time people, calm the fuck down. everyone understands your complaints before you even speak them as your complaints really aren't that insightful but rather obvious
technology evolves, so wait and see and chill out
if you have to meet someone shady behind an alley to get [x] versus walking into your average walmart to get [x], it might be that one world has more of [x] than the other
i leave it up to your boundless imagination and massive intellect to imagine which world that might be
and i can share the glories of the pakistani taliban versus zombie flick:
http://www.zibahkhana.com/
you act in good faith, so all i can offer is good faith of my own:
"I WANT to see a new era grow forth, and my post was a concern on why this is not happening after ten years of mindless arguing from both the biz and the filesharing community"
#1: there is no compatibility between the two communities, nor will there ever be
#2: one community's argument is nothing more than "why am i dying?"
there is no rapprochement between the transcribing monk and the printing press
all that happens is one dies, and the other lives
just say goodbye to the biz. its dying, and has no way not to die. thus its insane measures. it has a warchest, and all it is fighting is its own obsolescence
"it is a shame that the internet came and replaced my business model"
the internet is nothing but a superior distribution model that, fortunately for us, unfortunately for those invested in the old school, has no financial impetus. artists can distribute directly to their fans, without any filter in between
all music files are nowadays are nothing more than ad fliers for the artist's next show. revenue is made in ancillary streams: live shows, endorsements, etc. yes, this financial world is a lot smaller than the old one. and? why should we care there is less money involved? i am supposed to feel bad my artist will make $100,000 rather than $1,000,000? or rather, that my favorite artist's distributor makes $0 now instead of $10,000,000? besides, my favorite artist sits atop a pyramid of lesser artists who made pennies under the old model while their distributor reaped it all. and the lesser artists will actually make more under the new model, since there's no distributor to own and lord over their financial lives. the only artists who really suffer in the new model are the extremely well established artists: your metallica, your prince, your britney spears, your jay z. the highly-established artist who has muscled into the distribution model surrounding him
let's all shed a tear for fifty cent and the beatles
who fucking cares they will now make millions rather than billions
all that is dying is the old school distribution and financial model. everything else is upside
i mean it is a shame that the printing press put all those hardworking transcribing monks out of business too, but what are we supposed to do for those monks other than simply mourn their passing?
i mourn the passing of your era. that's all i have for you
if it were legal
which is my whole fucking point
who's the retard?
as if hamilton or madison didn't know what they were inviting?
as if hamilton or madison expected protection from the crown?
you say that my attitude is akin to the attitude of kind george the third goons. no, rather my attitude is to say that king george has goons that don't respect you, and never will, and you should know that. when you criticize me for this, you're simply shooting the messenger
do you think the answer is to hold the goons to some sort of expectation of behavior?
the american revolution would have been unnecessary if king george's goons were nice and behaved? pfffffffft
no
the solution is to stop caring about what you send out there. and if you care about it, don't send it out there
most of it is useless anyways, and lost in a sea of other random crap from other people
it is a symptom of people imagining little tidbits of their lives to be far more important than it is. its selective, false, self-congratulatory outrage
how could you define it as anything other than simple democracy at work? the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated. that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense. thus, its inevitable. with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed. enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crockett era. in other words, the continued free ownership of guns is the oligarchical, authoritarian existence you refer to. rural folk's influence on our laws is already out of proportion. due to the senate, for one, but also due to simple lag, the laws lagging behind the times. and if you think its unfair that rural folks hould ever suffer due to laws that make life easier for urban folk, remember: gun ownership is nothing more than a pact to let thousands of urban folk die for the sake of your quaint antiquated gun hobby. where's the oligarchy now buddy?
"at some point one needs to consider how the people live rather than how many die. Being servants of the state or victims of the largest, meanest group aren't exactly desirable outcomes"
i agree 100%. i no longer want to a victim of low iq hotheads with guns. i wish to live free of that scourge
as for prohibition, if something is illegal, less people can get it. do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do. marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent. of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street. we're talking about the ease of ownership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths. what the hell is more important than that? some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy? some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
"As for your statement that guns do not protect democracy (I think you meant a republic), I think you ought to take a look at our very own Revolutionary War. Do you think the Continental Army would ever have been able to defeat a world-class army if nearly every able-bodied male didn't have a gun and know how to use it? You say I'm confusing the arena of a civil setting with outright war. In order to protect freedom, one must be able to stage an outright war (see American Revolution again)."
really?
this is a nice fantasy life. what the fuck does it have to do with reality?
you know, red dawn wasn't a bad movie
neither was star wars
BOTH OF WHICH ARE FUCKING FICTIONAL FANTASIES
all your retarded fantasy life results in is thousands of needless deaths due to random retards on the street with guns
so you put wagner's ride of valkyries on repeat mode and fantasy about protecting the usa from assorted imaginary land invasions. please keep your fucking fantasy life out of my public policy. thanks
if something is illegal, less people can get it
do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do
marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent
of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street
we're talking about the ease of onwership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths
what the hell is more important than that?
some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy?
some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
pffffffft. grow the fuck up
the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated
that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense
thus, its inevitable
with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed
enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crocket era
why does that translate in your mind into every asshole on the street?
what?! you think that should be controlled?
life is dangerous, just deal with it, give my plutonium
implement of civil life
a gun isn't
is something that impinges on my freedom. in the form of assholes walking around with implements of death on my streets
i don't see yokels in the woods with guns as some bastion of protection of democracy. i see yokels in the woods with guns as the soil form which the next fascist will to power rises and seizes civil society
guns do not protect democracy, in a CIVIL setting. they are perfectly valid in arenas of outright war, but thats not civil society... yes, i understand some of you deluded types confuse the two arenas, which is my whole point in saying i don't trust you with guns on my streets. guns destroy democracy, guns are a threat to our freedoms, not a protection of them
what freedom am i talking about? our right to fucking live, protected from deluded assholes with assault rifles and a schizophrenic dirty harry complex
sometimes i really am just fed up with people at my office
in which case i go into outlook, and default all of my reply emails in purple comic sans bold 12 pt
no one emails me anymore
ahhhhh peace and quiet
or the feds snooping, i am really frankly surprised
you actually want to depend upon the federal government for your security?
you want to depend upon some school, some cable company, some phone company not to snoop on you?
whenever i'm encountered by this strange slashdot groupthink, i really have only one thing to offer: if you put it on a wire, if its outside your control, then the security or privacy of whatever you are doing is nothing you should count on
the outrage seems artifical, contrived, illogical, exasperating
if you want security, if you want privacy DON'T PUT IT ON A WIRE OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL
beginning and ending of discussion
as if you actually want ot TRUST some other entity to do your security work for you?
hey, how about this: YOU are responsible for your security
you, and you alone
is my pov really that strange?
it seems odd anyone should consider it any other way
listen carefully to what i am saying, as i have already said this and you are not demonstrating a capacity to listen or comprehend:
if you wish to destroy something and replace it with something else, you are still a nihilist if you have no articulation of what that "something else" is
if i see a house and i say i want to tear it down and replace it with "beauty", you are a most definitely nothing more than a demolisher, until that time that you build something else
understand?
what was supposed to replace the moral system he said needed replacing. all he did was refer to a "superman", which basically is nothing more than a synonym for the god he was supposedly destroying. nietzsche is mediocre, teenage-level psychology. that explains his popularity, but you can't take him seriously, because his effect IS simple nihilism, even if he never actively espouses that, because he never articulates a valid alternative to what he said needed replacing
in essence, he comes back to where he started: a believer in god. calling god superman is not an amazing philosophical contribution. all the idea of god ever was, and ever will be, is simply an idealization of what man can become. whoop de friggin doo
nietsche is kind of like freud: extremely popular and influential, but essentially 100% bogus
and replaced with waffles
if you belittle my philosophy in any way, its just because "you say so", not because you have any valid logical reason to object
whu?! howabout i have a valid coherent logical reason to object that i can articulate in logical reasonable terms. fair enough?
ok: defining what a "superman" is in logically coherent terms as expansive as the moral system it is supposed to replace would have value
otherwise, what nietzsche is doing is what every teenager does: destroy his faith in his society to have some psychological mobility, then rebuild it later as he settles down in adulthood. its a classic psychological developmental arc. nietzsche's entire arc of intellectual discovery is simply the average teenage philosphical experience. he destroys god... then rebuilds him, calling him "superman", but defining "superman" as essentially the same thing as the god he destroyed. all god is, and ever was, was a simple idealization of what mankind can become. wow, what an amazing philosophical contribution. zzz
nietzsche is mediocre. his popularity stems simply from the resonance he shares with teenage psychology. anyone who matures past the teenage years feels no real affinity for anything nietzsche ruminates about. (where "teenage years" refers to a psychological condition, not an actual chronological time period: plenty of 40 year olds are still psychologically teenagers)
prattling on about a superman does not count, its too vague and humorously deific when god is supposed to be dead
it does no good to overthrow an existing order without properly articulating a new one
otherwise, your effect is nihilism, whether actively espouse that philosophy or not
could nietzsche? beyond prattling on about a superman?
it does no good to overthrow an existing order without properly articulating a new one
otherwise, your effect is nihilism, whether actively espouse that philosophy or not
but not high speed rail: incredibly expensive
but forgive me beforehand, i'm rather ignorant of anything outside the northeast, transitwise
i can see high speed rail between major cities all throughout the country though
and the midwest does have the benefit of being flat, lower property values, straight property lines, and no critical mass of nimbys