Good post. No, I haven't ever had the opportunity to ride any Amtrak train. I was just responding to the previous post. So, why is the Empire Builder train always full if it costs the same as flying and takes longer? Was the previous poster full of it when he said the trip took 8 hours?
Also, if they are running to capacity all of the time, why aren't they making money? Seems like they could either raise rates (if the market would bear it) or increase capacity to increase revenue.
there's no room for them between airlines (which are better for hopping from coast to coast), automobiles (for a daily commute, and which have incredible advantages over any centralized transport system), and public transportation (for daily commute in urban areas).
Not sure where you live, but the automobile is quickly becoming a poor mode of transportation for a daily commute. I love my car and love driving, but if I had to commute to another city for work it would be ridiculous. Fuel is over $2.00 a gallon (if you hadn't noticed) and traffic is out of control in most of the halfway metropolitan areas in the country. People in LA have 3 or 4 hour commutes - each way, the east has toll roads, much of the west and midwest is experiencing growth as people are trying to get out of the congested areas on both coasts.
Our economy is tied directly to our infrastructure, which is currently tied directly to oil. Until we figure out how to deal with the infrastructure problems that are growing exponentially in many parts of this country we are not going to see significant economic growth. It's just a fact.
Advances in robotics alone are likely to overtake use of humans in most routine employment in about 2020 (check-out clerks, receptionists, secretarial, general manufacture)
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
I'm not supporting the idea that the US Government should 'drop all of it's arms', but, for the sake of argument...
Pre World War II that's exactly what the US did. They only kept a minimal military force. Our relative isolation from the rest of the world made it difficult to attack us. When we were involved in major wars like World War I and World War II men had to be drafted to meet our military needs. I think this is something that most people don't recognize anymore. Before WWII most countries didn't recognize the US as a force to be reckoned with. Since then the cold war, including our involvements in Vietnam and Korea, forced us to keep our military spending up. I would guess that if we did minimize our federal military spending no one would come along and invade us. The army isn't keeping terrorist attacks away, unless they are doing so by destroying Afghanistan and Iraq - and thats the only type of attack I know that we've had to thwarte recently.
While the train system was cheap for visitors (because of the special pass), it was just as expensive to ride the train as it was to fly for residents.
How did the travel times compare? If they were comperable there wouldn't be any reason not to take the train. Plus I can't imagine there were commercial flights everywhere the trains went. I could be wrong, but that seems strange.
My point exactly. Looks like St. Paul is about 350 miles from Chicago. If a train was available that went at least 100mph you could make the trip in 3 1/2 hours. Seems like rail travel should be significantly cheaper than air travel, but it's obviously not. No wonder Amtrak can't make any money, I can't imagine their trains are anywhere near capacity at those prices.
Perhaps if there was more government investment in the rail system they could get the price down, speeds up and actually generate some revenue.
Seriously. From my Minnesota home town to Las Vegas: Eighty bucks and four hours. How the fuck is a train going to compete with that?
That's a crap example. Vegas flights are always cheap. How much to fly from your home town to Chicago, Des Moines or Detroit. What if you could hop a train and be there for significantly less in the same amount of time. I would agree that going cross country on a train is never going to be a good option, but going 50-300 miles seems like a no brainer - especially if the train would go 100+ mph and I could be at my destination in a few hours.
I'm sure that's true, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I belive there are many shuttle type airplane flights between LA and San Diego, Las Vegas and other places. Seems like that would be a good option for a bullet train solution. Earthquakes might be a problem, but Japan is in a high earthquake zone too, so the problems must be surmountable.
Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
I think that depends on where you are. Out west, in Colorado, where I live there is a big interest in it. In 2003 voters approved a 4.7 Billion dollar initiative to extend the light-rail system well outside of the Denver area. Unfortunately it's going to take them twelve years to complete it and traffic here is getting difficult now.
Besides, where is Amtrak going to get that money? They're struggling to maintain what they already have... What you're talking about is a HUGE investment.
Same place we got the money for the war in Iraq. Why is it our government can invest in conquering another country half a world away, but when it comes to investing in some infrastructure here at home we just can't afford it?
WISPs have yet to establish a business model that can be shown to be profitable, especially in metro areas.
Interesting. Where I live there are tons of them (well, not exactly 'where I live', but in several neighboring cities). I know of several people that use it and say the service is great. These companies have been around several years - if they don't have a profitable business model they sure are taking a long time to go broke. Here's a link to their website.
I'm with the other guy. If the government fucks up bad, you can do something about it. If a company fucks up, their CEO just screams "corporate veil! corporate veil!" like a scared little girl.
I would argue the opposite. Exactly what can be done about the Government? Vote? Great if you have an opportunity or a person that's worth voting for. OK, then run for Office. If you can get in maybe you can do something about it. Either way, if you are trying to get something changed like sucky cable service, it could take months or years to make a difference.
At least a corporation has an interest in your money. If your service is poor you can stop paying for it. If enough people think it's poor and stop paying for the service the corporation will do something about it. If the cable service is owned by the government and it sucks you can't even stop paying for it because they use your tax dollars to support it.
Not true. May local governments have indeed passed laws and allowed specific companies to have monopoly status for cable TV. This was true in the early days and is likely still the case in many areas.
For what it's worth I believe that is the case where I live. I remember a couple years ago there was a ballot initiative concerning another cable company. Appearantly they had to put it to a citywide vote before the competing company could move into town.
Denizens of mountainous areas often don't see the horizon at all - their line of sight to it is blocked by said mountains.
I would venture that most people that live 'in mountainous areas' are not completely surrounded by mountains. Most big cities that are near mountain ranges are on one side or another - so it should be quite easy to sample people that live near mountains and still can see the horizon.
As a Kerry supporter, I was hoping a lot of people would be motivated to go to the polls to get rid of Bush. And they did. Unfortunately, even more people were motivated to vote FOR Bush because they like him.
Good point, actually, I think Kerry wasn't polarizing enough. There was nothing to get behind Kerry about other than hating Bush. I watched the debates, Kerry either agreed with Bush on everything or was sufficiently vague about his position so you didn't know where he was. Personally I voted for Bush mostly because I didn't have any idea what Kerry was about and what he would do in office. Otherwise I would have voted libertarian.
Therefore the Texas oilman that everyone has strong feelings about beats the Senator no one had heard of before the election. Similarly, a New York senator/former first lady that everyone has strong feelings about should also do well, and for the same reason.
Hmmm... maybe, but I don't think so. This country isn't ready for a woman to be president (I'm not stating any personal views here, just my perception about the country). On top of that, she's moving more centrist all the time. If she wanted to win the presidency she should take a stance that people can actually support. If she's a total moderate walking that line between liberal and conservative, not well liked in much of the country and a woman running her will be sucide for the party. My guess is the republicans will run Guliani and he would destroy her.
I feel your pain. I voted against Kerry in 2004 rather than voting for the Libertarian candidate. I actually hope Hillary gets the nomination in 08 - it will mean the Dems are a complete non-issue. We will be back to a two party system, the Libertarians and the Republicans.
i'll make sure I'll never hire you if $100k can buy your so called "morality".
I said tempted, didn't say I would do it. You expect me to believe that if someone offered you $100K to provide a few names, addresses and credit card numbers you wouldn't think twice about it? Liar.
I'm sure that's one of PayPal's main uses - eBay auction payment.
eBay is definitely PayPal's main revenue stream, that's why eBay bought them. OTOH, I do see PayPal on many other sites selling many other things. It's convenient because credit cards can be taken as payment without having a merchant account. There is a big market and PayPal has just enough of a questionable reputation to hold it back some. Also, eBay is actually good at giving options for other payments and sellers can put links to other payment formats in their ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Good post. No, I haven't ever had the opportunity to ride any Amtrak train. I was just responding to the previous post. So, why is the Empire Builder train always full if it costs the same as flying and takes longer? Was the previous poster full of it when he said the trip took 8 hours?
Also, if they are running to capacity all of the time, why aren't they making money? Seems like they could either raise rates (if the market would bear it) or increase capacity to increase revenue.
there's no room for them between airlines (which are better for hopping from coast to coast), automobiles (for a daily commute, and which have incredible advantages over any centralized transport system), and public transportation (for daily commute in urban areas).
Not sure where you live, but the automobile is quickly becoming a poor mode of transportation for a daily commute. I love my car and love driving, but if I had to commute to another city for work it would be ridiculous. Fuel is over $2.00 a gallon (if you hadn't noticed) and traffic is out of control in most of the halfway metropolitan areas in the country. People in LA have 3 or 4 hour commutes - each way, the east has toll roads, much of the west and midwest is experiencing growth as people are trying to get out of the congested areas on both coasts.
Our economy is tied directly to our infrastructure, which is currently tied directly to oil. Until we figure out how to deal with the infrastructure problems that are growing exponentially in many parts of this country we are not going to see significant economic growth. It's just a fact.
Advances in robotics alone are likely to overtake use of humans in most routine employment in about 2020 (check-out clerks, receptionists, secretarial, general manufacture)
You forgot prostitution.
Are you seriously claiming that if the US just dropped all of its arms, absolutely nobody anywhere would attack it?
I'm not supporting the idea that the US Government should 'drop all of it's arms', but, for the sake of argument...
Pre World War II that's exactly what the US did. They only kept a minimal military force. Our relative isolation from the rest of the world made it difficult to attack us. When we were involved in major wars like World War I and World War II men had to be drafted to meet our military needs. I think this is something that most people don't recognize anymore. Before WWII most countries didn't recognize the US as a force to be reckoned with. Since then the cold war, including our involvements in Vietnam and Korea, forced us to keep our military spending up. I would guess that if we did minimize our federal military spending no one would come along and invade us. The army isn't keeping terrorist attacks away, unless they are doing so by destroying Afghanistan and Iraq - and thats the only type of attack I know that we've had to thwarte recently.
While the train system was cheap for visitors (because of the special pass), it was just as expensive to ride the train as it was to fly for residents.
How did the travel times compare? If they were comperable there wouldn't be any reason not to take the train. Plus I can't imagine there were commercial flights everywhere the trains went. I could be wrong, but that seems strange.
My point exactly. Looks like St. Paul is about 350 miles from Chicago. If a train was available that went at least 100mph you could make the trip in 3 1/2 hours. Seems like rail travel should be significantly cheaper than air travel, but it's obviously not. No wonder Amtrak can't make any money, I can't imagine their trains are anywhere near capacity at those prices.
Perhaps if there was more government investment in the rail system they could get the price down, speeds up and actually generate some revenue.
People who choose cars over other forms of ground transportation so the investment in Iraq makes more sense.
Yeah, I've noticed how much cheaper it is to drive my car since we invaded Iraq. Great investment.
Seriously. From my Minnesota home town to Las Vegas: Eighty bucks and four hours. How the fuck is a train going to compete with that?
That's a crap example. Vegas flights are always cheap. How much to fly from your home town to Chicago, Des Moines or Detroit. What if you could hop a train and be there for significantly less in the same amount of time. I would agree that going cross country on a train is never going to be a good option, but going 50-300 miles seems like a no brainer - especially if the train would go 100+ mph and I could be at my destination in a few hours.
I'm sure that's true, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I belive there are many shuttle type airplane flights between LA and San Diego, Las Vegas and other places. Seems like that would be a good option for a bullet train solution. Earthquakes might be a problem, but Japan is in a high earthquake zone too, so the problems must be surmountable.
Passenger rail in the US is pretty much screwed and has been since we made the decision to go with highways instead - it would take major Federal funding and interest to get it to any reasonable level, and theres just not the citizen-level demand for it.
I think that depends on where you are. Out west, in Colorado, where I live there is a big interest in it. In 2003 voters approved a 4.7 Billion dollar initiative to extend the light-rail system well outside of the Denver area. Unfortunately it's going to take them twelve years to complete it and traffic here is getting difficult now.
Besides, where is Amtrak going to get that money? They're struggling to maintain what they already have... What you're talking about is a HUGE investment.
Same place we got the money for the war in Iraq. Why is it our government can invest in conquering another country half a world away, but when it comes to investing in some infrastructure here at home we just can't afford it?
WISPs have yet to establish a business model that can be shown to be profitable, especially in metro areas.
Interesting. Where I live there are tons of them (well, not exactly 'where I live', but in several neighboring cities). I know of several people that use it and say the service is great. These companies have been around several years - if they don't have a profitable business model they sure are taking a long time to go broke. Here's a link to their website.
I'm with the other guy. If the government fucks up bad, you can do something about it. If a company fucks up, their CEO just screams "corporate veil! corporate veil!" like a scared little girl.
I would argue the opposite. Exactly what can be done about the Government? Vote? Great if you have an opportunity or a person that's worth voting for. OK, then run for Office. If you can get in maybe you can do something about it. Either way, if you are trying to get something changed like sucky cable service, it could take months or years to make a difference.
At least a corporation has an interest in your money. If your service is poor you can stop paying for it. If enough people think it's poor and stop paying for the service the corporation will do something about it. If the cable service is owned by the government and it sucks you can't even stop paying for it because they use your tax dollars to support it.
Not true. May local governments have indeed passed laws and allowed specific companies to have monopoly status for cable TV. This was true in the early days and is likely still the case in many areas.
For what it's worth I believe that is the case where I live. I remember a couple years ago there was a ballot initiative concerning another cable company. Appearantly they had to put it to a citywide vote before the competing company could move into town.
Wouldn't it be funner if we got a ship, sword, eye-patch and parrot just for downloading some copyrighted software?
Actually was at a Halloween party one time where a guy was dressed as a "software pirate". He was such a geek - left and went to a party with chicks.
Of course she went to the teacher's classroom and explained what we did well before I got there
Hope she made it worth your while...
Denizens of mountainous areas often don't see the horizon at all - their line of sight to it is blocked by said mountains.
I would venture that most people that live 'in mountainous areas' are not completely surrounded by mountains. Most big cities that are near mountain ranges are on one side or another - so it should be quite easy to sample people that live near mountains and still can see the horizon.
As a Kerry supporter, I was hoping a lot of people would be motivated to go to the polls to get rid of Bush. And they did. Unfortunately, even more people were motivated to vote FOR Bush because they like him.
Good point, actually, I think Kerry wasn't polarizing enough. There was nothing to get behind Kerry about other than hating Bush. I watched the debates, Kerry either agreed with Bush on everything or was sufficiently vague about his position so you didn't know where he was. Personally I voted for Bush mostly because I didn't have any idea what Kerry was about and what he would do in office. Otherwise I would have voted libertarian.
Therefore the Texas oilman that everyone has strong feelings about beats the Senator no one had heard of before the election. Similarly, a New York senator/former first lady that everyone has strong feelings about should also do well, and for the same reason.
Hmmm... maybe, but I don't think so. This country isn't ready for a woman to be president (I'm not stating any personal views here, just my perception about the country). On top of that, she's moving more centrist all the time. If she wanted to win the presidency she should take a stance that people can actually support. If she's a total moderate walking that line between liberal and conservative, not well liked in much of the country and a woman running her will be sucide for the party. My guess is the republicans will run Guliani and he would destroy her.
I feel your pain. I voted against Kerry in 2004 rather than voting for the Libertarian candidate. I actually hope Hillary gets the nomination in 08 - it will mean the Dems are a complete non-issue. We will be back to a two party system, the Libertarians and the Republicans.
And all this time I thought JS Popups were a flaw all by themselves.
Not sure it's a stupid banner ad and I've never clicked on it. Either shows up here or on isohunt. Not sure which.
Somebody finally makes an actual funny post and I'm all out of mod points...
i'll make sure I'll never hire you if $100k can buy your so called "morality".
I said tempted, didn't say I would do it. You expect me to believe that if someone offered you $100K to provide a few names, addresses and credit card numbers you wouldn't think twice about it? Liar.
I'm sure that's one of PayPal's main uses - eBay auction payment.
eBay is definitely PayPal's main revenue stream, that's why eBay bought them. OTOH, I do see PayPal on many other sites selling many other things. It's convenient because credit cards can be taken as payment without having a merchant account. There is a big market and PayPal has just enough of a questionable reputation to hold it back some. Also, eBay is actually good at giving options for other payments and sellers can put links to other payment formats in their ads.
When the damned ads started getting up and marching across the screen like wooden soldiers in a little kid's dreams, I began to get apoplectic.
Let's not forget the ads that make noise. Lately that stupid chick that says "Type whatever you want me to say" really irritates me.