Seen at the bottom of Slashdot's pages today: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know. -- Michel de Montaigne"
This is not a new concept. I've heard many people claim that the average voter is too stupid, too ignorant, too emotional, or some such to vote. That we need to have some smart people make the decisions for them.
Two problems I see with this claim. First is that we've had this system for over two centuries. This is the longest lasting government in contemporary times. As flawed as the system is now, and has become, it has outlived all the others.
The second problem I have with the idea of having "benevolent dictators" decide what is best for us is the problem of choosing these people. Do we take a vote? Well, that's effectively what we do now. Every two years a large portion of them come up for elections.
For a government to last it must have the permission of the governed. Without a certain level of agreement between the governing body and the governed the governed will disobey, revolt, cast off the governing body.
If you don't like having to require the permission of another to tell them what to do then... good luck with that. They outnumber you.
You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?
How do we protect trains, shopping malls, or just about anything else from terrorists? The answer is, we don't. Why is that? Because terror attacks are very rare. It's also because terror attacks typically take the same form as any other crime. So, on one level we can protect our airplanes from terror attacks the same way we currently protect subways from terror attacks, by watching out for the common thug.
I will admit that the analogy is not perfect. If there is a problem on a train there is always the option to stop the train and chase everyone out to the side of the tracks. There would be likely some need to screen people for materials that should not be on an airplane. This search should be done by airline or airport employees. If there is a need these screeners can be sworn officers much like railroad police, they have arrest powers but they are still employees of a private corporation. Private employees work under different motivations than public employees, it's those motivations that will keep them from getting out of hand like the TSA has.
To keep the airplanes safe we need layers of protection. Have screeners, employed by the airline/airport, screen for obvious threats. Have company police roam the airports and ride in the airplanes. Bolt the doors to the flight deck. Arm the pilots. Arm the crew. Hell, even allow the passengers to be armed. If the thugs get something passed the screeners we need to have a crew capable of responding while they are still in flight.
The only real change that needs to be done is to put the owners of the aircraft in charge of the security of the aircraft. Let them decide who gets to fly. Just so long as they don't have some sort of policies that make "flying while Arab" grounds to deny service then I can see them doing a much better job than any government employee.
Seriously I could write a book on the topic. I can't fit a book inside some web browser text box so I have to keep it short. One basic premise to remember is that it is not the government's job to keep us safe. Our safety is our own responsibility. The safety of the airframe is the responsibility of the owners. Keep the government out of it until they are specifically asked to do so. If the company police catch someone doing something they should not then they can arrest this person and hand them over to the government. Until then the government needs to stay out.
In effect everyone going through an airport screening has been arrested. Arrest means to stop with legal authority. The TSA agents stop everyone at the checkpoint and are effectively accusing them of a crime. The difference here is that the Senator has been arrested for an unexpectedly long time, causing him to miss the opening of a session of the Senate. This is old news, people getting arrested at the airport, with a new twist, this time it was a legislator on his way to a session of Congress.
The executive branch of the federal government has been pissing on the US Constitution for a very long time with the TSA, it's just that this time they chose to piss on Article I, Section 6.
Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched.
That's true. But you do have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane without being searched by the government.
The government is prohibited from searching unless there is probable cause. With millions of people flying on airplanes every year without trying to blow them up there is no cause for the government to search every passenger. The airlines can search passengers if they like as a condition of flying but the government cannot. If an airline employee performing the search finds something potentially illegal then that employee can report that to law enforcement if they like. They can also choose to ignore the illegal act. TSA employees do not have that choice, if they see a potentially illegal act they must report it.
With the TSA doing the search the government now has checkpoints all over the country with a blank check to search for anything. This turns the assumption of innocence until proven guilty upside down. Now everyone is assumed to be guilty of breaking some law and therefore the government can now search for evidence to use against you in a court of law. This has gone beyond keeping the aircraft safe and is now a dragnet to search for drugs, deadbeat dads, fake ID cards, child porn, and other stuff. I'm all about finding deadbeat dads but I don't like being treated like one because I chose to fly.
Also, this is not a consensual search. A consensual search means that the consent can be revoked at any time. What the TSA has done is removed that possibility by forcing people to be searched under the penalty of jail time and/or severe fines. Once the search starts the TSA will not allow you to remove your consent. If the TSA allowed people to revoke their consent to the search this might be tolerable but this has reached into madness. This is obviously no longer about keeping the aircraft safe since if it was they should be pleased with themselves that a potential threat just walked away from the airport. If the threat walked away they did their job. But their job is no longer about keeping the aircraft safe. I'm not even sure how to define their job any more.
What the TSA has done here is delayed a Senator from attending a congressional session. They delayed him even after he's gone through a search of his luggage, passed through a magnetometer, and has generally proved he was not armed. This was a violation of the Constitutional powers granted to the executive branch many times over.
Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others.
Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.
He allowed himself to be scanned with the mm-wave full body scanner, had his bags searched, went through the magnetometer and bomb sniffer, but drew the line at a pat down. He was obviously not armed and yet the TSA wanted to search further for... what exactly? If this is "breach of the peace" then the federal government can arrest people for farting in an elevator.
The TSA could argue that if they like. I'd like to see them do so in a court of law.
Oh, and the TSA is claiming the Senator was not "detained". I believe the words were "denied access to the secure area" and "escorted out by local law enforcement". Being "escorted" unwillingly by police sounds like detainment to me. This is something else I'd like to see them argue in a court of law.
Efficiency is not paramount. I had an "efficient" car before. It burned about 2/3 as much gas as my current truck per mile. It also got stuck several times in the snow... in my own driveway. I'm quite happy burning more fuel now since it means I don't have to dig myself out of my own driveway. Or walk home because my car got stuck in the road. When Ford comes out with a plug-in electric F-150 truck then we can talk.
Your "end of story" comment implies to me that nothing I could say could convince you of anything. Okay, fine, electric vehicles will rule the world. Whatever. Time will tell who is right.
It's one thing for the government to keep factories from dumping solvents into the rivers. It's quite another for the government to tell a corporation that they cannot build a factory in another state because it might be detrimental to the ability of the labor union to dictate their wages.
Boeing wanted to build a factory in, IIRC, South Carolina. The labor union in Washington state didn't like this because they felt the competition from a right to work state would be detrimental to their future wages. Whether this was true or not is debatable. The union complained to the sympathetic federal government and got the government to block the construction of the factory.
Now Boeing cannot build more planes. The airlines are going to need more planes. If Boeing can't make them at a competitive price, or make them at all because of federal mandates, then Airbus gets the sales instead.
That's just one example of government stepping in to "protect" the domestic workforce and have it blow up in their face.
This is not a problem business's solve, it requires a government solution.
To me there are very few problems that only the government can solve. This is certainly not one of them. When we have the government dictating economic policy to this level we have something approaching socialism. Central planning of the economy has never turned out well. This could also be considered isolationism, where we limit our economic interactions with the rest of the world to benefit domestic production. The problem with both of these policies is reduced competition, higher prices, lowered (economic) freedoms, and more reasons for the government to get involved to fix the problems the government created in the first place.
The long game of course is to bring developed nations down to the level of the developing nations.
Or the long game is to raise the developing nations to the level of the developed nations.
I've already seen this happen. A contract is made to outsource some development of a product to a foreign entity. They provide their services and next time a new contract is negotiated. The quality of the previous product is used to negotiate the new contract. Either the quality is good and the contractor demands a higher price, or the quality was poor and the one making the offer demands a lower price. Over time these jobs almost inevitably go to domestic contractors because the cost/benefit will favor someone that shares a culture/language and a work schedule. Having 8:00 AM teleconferences with people that are at 6:00 PM their time are not always productive since people on this end of the phone have not yet had their second cup of coffee and the people on the other end want to get on the next train home. There were also issues of talking with people that had English as a second language, something tended to be lost in translation.
Some economists and historians believe it was government intervention like this that brought about the Great Depression. I'm not sure if I believe them, since there is plenty of evidence to the contrary as well. The point is that I just don't like the idea of any government telling a company like Apple where they can build their factories. If they government can tell them where to build their factory can the government also tell them what products to produce? The price that the products must be sold? How much profit they are allowed to make?
Get the government out of private business. I've seen how well the government runs things like the postal service and how well they are maintaining our bridges. Let them focus on the jobs they were mandated to perform and keep out of dictating to private businesses how they should run their factories.
1) The efficiency of using a stationary natural gas power plant to charge an electric vehicle is not the only factor in the viability of doing this as a shift away from foreign oil and/or reducing one's carbon footprint. (I mention both because some people, like myself, are not terribly concerned with their carbon footprint but are concerned about foreign energy destroying the economy.)
One other issue is that of range. An electric vehicle will need a recharge every 50 miles or so while a natural gas vehicle will need a fill up every 200 miles or so. A recharge takes hours, a fill up takes minutes. Barring some massive shift in infrastructure (swappable batteries) and/or technology (higher density electric storage) electric vehicles will not be viable for planes, trains, trucks, buses, and ships. Natural gas is viable for these needs, if a bit less convenient than liquid fuels.
2) We would not be stuck on fossil fuels. Natural gas can be synthesized. Natural gas is primarily methane but the synthetic alternative does not have to contain any carbon, it could be a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen for example. The energy to produce this synthetic fuel could come from wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever.
A natural gas vehicle has just about all the advantages of a gasoline vehicle while burning a domestically produced fuel with a reduced carbon output. If the natural gas gets too expensive then there is the possibility of making a synthetic alternative and placing it in the same pipes we already have for the natural gas. There is a possibility of considerable losses because of the conversions involved but this can be addressed by using off peak power and intermittent power (wind and solar for example) that might otherwise be wasted anyway. Part of the problem with nuclear power is that the power output cannot be changed rapidly. With the ability to synthesize ammonia and/or methane with the excess power output the nuclear power plant can be run at peak efficiency all the time.
This also does not rule out the use of a vehicle like the Chevy Volt that uses electricity for short trips but only needs the use of a natural gas internal combustion engine for things like long trips and extreme cold temperatures. With the use of synthesized natural gas there is no dependence on fossil fuels and people can use whatever source of energy is cheapest or most convenient.
Why would I buy an electric vehicle when the electricity is produced with natural gas? Why don't I just burn the natural gas in my vehicle?
I get your point, reduce our carbon footprint with a shift in fuels. The problem with that policy is that the energy in coal cannot be legislated away. We can cap and tax all we want but people will still burn coal. There is only so much natural gas that we can produce. The faster we burn it, the rarer it gets, the more expensive it becomes. Basic economics.
If people want to see the world shift away from fossil fuels then there needs to be an alternative that is better. Better can mean a lot of things but it can almost always be boiled down to costs. Right now electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal can easily cost double that from coal. Even if coal prices were to triple we'd still be burning coal since coal does not need the wind to blow, the sun to shine, or a specific geological formation.
I see nuclear as the next step. Just like coal it works rain or shine. Also, like coal nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar, and geothermal. Nuclear is possibly cheaper than natural gas. We still use natural gas despite its cost because it makes for a cheap peak power source. That is cheap as in cheaper than fuel oil or other forms of producing the electricity.
For wind, wave, solar, and so on to replace coal the price gap, and reliability gap, will have to narrow considerably.
Bringing this back to vehicles the performance gap on electric vs. internal combustion will have to close as well. It will take some real changes on pricing and technology before we see long haul trucking run on electricity.
Just a reminder, just about every kind of power station can generate energy more efficiently than a car.
I agree. What bothers me though is that for these plug in electric vehicles to meet the claim of a lower carbon footprint the power is going to have to come from something other than coal. A coal fired power plant can achieve 60% efficiency. A common internal combustion engine used in a car can get about 30% efficiency, some as high as 40%. All the energy from the coal is coming from carbon. In a vehicle powered by gasoline or diesel fuel half of the energy is from carbon, half from hydrogen, give or take.
Even though the power plant gets 60% efficiency there is some losses from the transmission lines, battery charging and discharging, and other losses along the way. Some of these losses when comparing a plug in electric and an internal combustion powered car are a wash since the car will be exposed to losses due to wind resistance and such regardless of where the energy comes from.
With some quick research on things like heat engine efficiencies, where our electricity comes from, and bit of chemistry I can do some quick estimates on how much carbon is released into the atmosphere per mile driven. I've come to the conclusion that an electric car is really just a coal powered car and the amount of carbon per mile is pretty much identical to the gasoline powered car.
Sure, I could lower my carbon footprint by trading in my truck for a little car like the Chevy Volt but I could also get the same level of carbon output reduction for a fraction of the price by trading in my truck for a ten year old small gasoline powered car. The real savings in carbon comes not from being electric but from being a smaller, lighter, vehicle. I had a ten year old gasoline powered car and I didn't like it very much so I traded it in for a small SUV. I'm much happier now, especially since the snow began to fall. Getting stuck in the snow used to be a common occurrence but is now just a bad memory. You will have to pry my truck from my cold dead hands. I don't give a damn about carbon footprints when stuck in the snow 30 miles from home, or even two blocks from home.
You can argue which comes first, the electric car or the nuclear power plants, if you like. It's my belief that the nuclear power plants need to come first. I need to see a real demonstration of the intent to remove ourselves from fossil fuels before I buy an electric vehicle. I'm not going to buy an electric vehicle in the hope a nuclear power plant will come to lower my carbon output, the car will likely be obsolete first. This is all irrelevant to me until I can get my hands on an electric vehicle that can carry me, my guns, and my game home from the hunting grounds without getting stuck in the mud and snow.
When it comes to tail pip emissions other than CO2 I'm also not convinced on "clean coal" producing less pollution. With the low sulfur fuels, catalytic converters, engine control units monitoring the exhaust I believe the car emissions to be quite "clean". This is compared to coal plants that buy the cheapest, and therefore dirtiest, fuel they can get by with. I've heard stories of how many of these plants will "blow the pipes" at night to clear out all the soot when no one is watching.
It's going to take quite a bit to convince me to buy an electric vehicle. I might be running my truck off of oil piped in from Canada and Mexico instead of domestic coal and natural gas but at least I'm not getting stuck in the snow. I'll wait for some nuclear power plants and some 4WD electric trucks before I wean myself from gasoline.
If that is true then doesn't it concern you in the slightest that there is simply no observations to support your hypothesis?
With all that I wrote that is what you chose to focus on? Let's assume that the observed global warming is caused by human activity, so what are we supposed to do about it?
I want to get past the argument on whether or not we have man made global warming. I want to get past the argument on whether or not global warming even exists, man made or not. I want to see an energy policy that people can agree upon whether they are convinced on the existence of man made global warming or not.
There is a lot of things that are not up for debate. Or at least a lot harder to refute. One of those is that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Another is that unless you cook your food over cattle dung you fall in one of two groups, you buy your energy from a politically unstable oil exporting nation or you live in one. This dependence on oil will lead to problems one way or another, I believe the term is "resource wars".
There is a proven energy source out there that just about every nation can develop once they can get past cooking over cattle dung. This energy source is cheap, plentiful, safe, and has a low carbon footprint. This is nuclear fission power. Any nation capable of building large scale coal fired power plants should be able to move to nuclear power.
Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass fuels are cute but they cannot support an industrialized nation. Things like refining iron, powering trains, and heavy industry in general need the energy density that only fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide. Sure, there might be some future technology that offers another choice but right now its nuclear power, fossil fuels, or living in a grass hut and cooking over cattle dung.
At some point we are gong to have to move away from fossil fuels. They are either going to just plain run out or, more likely, the people that have them are not going to be willing to give them up. That means we have to live in grass huts or switch to nuclear power.
The whole global warming issue is irrelevant to me. I just don't care any more. Let's talk about solutions. I propose nuclear power.
I've given up arguing over the questionable scientific methods used to support man made global warming. It's my belief that the current warming trends have more to do with variations in the Earth's orbit and/or solar activity than any gasses we produce in the burning of fossil fuels. Instead of arguing over that the debate is not over I will instead point out the problems with many so called solutions to the so called global warming problem.
There are many "solutions" to the problems that involve government taxation for the "polluters" (carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet and yet it's a "pollutant"?) and government credits for those that are somehow "harmed" or wronged by this pollution and/or those that choose a means of obtaining energy that is deemed to have a lower carbon footprint. This is wealth redistribution. This is government welfare. This is communism.
If one were to place the sources of electricity in order of their carbon footprint, from least to greatest, the first one would be hydroelectric. Since just about every river worth a dam on this planet has already been dammed up there is little growth left to produce more power. After that comes nuclear power, there's plenty of room for growth here. Then comes, not necessarily in order, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and wave/tidal power sources. I believe that pretty much covers all the non-fossil fuel sources, which leaves us, in order, natural gas, fuel oil, and coal.
The problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent. The sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow. These energy sources are also very expensive. To address their intermittent nature requires energy storage, load shedding, and/or a backup power source. Implementing any of these things to address the intermittent nature of wind and solar only adds to the cost. As my dad pointed out, if you are going to need all of those natural gas backup generators to make up for the lost load when the wind does not turn the windmills then why not just run the natural gas generators and don't even bother with the windmills?
Using biomass for fuel means turning over arable land, lots of it, to produce fuel instead of food. That means food and energy prices go up. It also means removing biomass "waste" from the fields instead of plowing it back into the soil. That lost carbon and nitrogen would have to be replaced chemically, this typically involves fertilizers derived from fossil fuels (most commonly natural gas). So again, instead of burning the corn, switch grass, sugar beets or whatever and using natural gas derived fertilizers why don't we just burn the natural gas and leave the biomass in the fields as fertilizer?
Geothermal shows promise but, like hydroelectric, it relies on favorable geologic formations. These favorable geothermal locations do not typically coincide with favorable living conditions.
All these so called "solutions" to our carbon output involve increased reliance on fossil fuels (in backup power, materials, idled power plants) or involve seriously increased costs of energy (due to wealth redistribution, expensive alternatives, or redundancies to account for unreliability). The only exception to that is nuclear power. Despite the low carbon footprint, relatively low cost, and it's ability to be placed just about anywhere, very few people will consider it as a viable solution.
I believe we should still experiment with technologies like wind and solar. These have uses beyond just electric grid power, such as producing power where fossil fuels and nuclear power are not practical. These can also provide competition to keep prices low. Geothermal and hydroelectric also make sense when geologic formations make them viable. They are also favorable because of their affordable power.
IMHO, biomass as fuel is a terrible idea. Civilizations have died off because they were burning their food.
To me the only real solution to lowering our carbon output into the atmosphere is n
Lets not restrict the sale of guns but lets catch them after we have given them millions of guns to alot of people. Guns violence kill more people in a half a year that every terrorist attack against america combined. 11 thousand deaths a year can be attributed to it.
Gun violence kills people? No, people kill people. The gun is a tool, like a shovel or a hammer. The tool holds no malice, it can be used for good or evil depending on the heart of the person wielding it.
I like how people do not read the hole thing and just the last half of the law. I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia.
First, I am a member of the militia. As a male citizen that has not yet reached the age of 45 I am a member of the militia under federal law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Second, YOU need to read the whole thing. You even quoted it and yet you did not read it.
As passed by the Congress: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The amendment states that the militia is to be regulated. You can regulate the militia into oblivion if you like but the right to keep and bear arms still remains protected from government infringement. The Supreme Court of the United States has even pointed this out in recent opinions. The right of keeping arms (that whole "bear" thing is still being debated) is not dependent on membership in the militia. The first half of the Second Amendment is a "declarative clause" and therefore only states the reason for the amendment to exist. The second half is the "operative clause" which can stand on its own and the government must act upon. The declarative clause merely states the desired outcome of the operative clause, it is not the only outcome that is possible. This outcome might be achieved by other means but that does not negate the operative clause.
A computer capable of viewing us as children might feel the desire to protect us as a parent would do. This protection they provide might be well intentioned but also very detrimental to our own survival. This would not be out of hatred or malevolence but because of a lack of foresight or information.
This has a parallel with a parent that is so overprotective of a child that the person grows up to be naive, misinformed, lacking in basic survival skills, and/or lacking in other ways necessary to live as an adult. We also see this in government programs which are supposed to help people but instead leave them worse off than before. The intention for good is there but because of some failing in the means the end is not achieved.
There's plenty of science fiction that plays on this. A common theme is of a computer system that slowly takes over the mundane tasks of our lives. This evolves to where the computer takes over less mundane, essentially becoming our government. The terrible end to mankind comes when this caregiver computer fails, goes "insane", or does not account for some factor outside the scope of its programming. The "X factor" has varied in these stories from human ambition, alien invasion, disease, some natural disaster, or some combination of those factors.
What we perceive as a malevolent act might be considered something the computer views as necessary for the improvement of mankind (on a wide scale) or for the improvement of its own master (on the small scale). One story that comes to mind is a short story of a family that bought a robotic maid to cook for them and help them lose weight. The robot suffered damage in an attempt by the father to change the parameters of the diet. The robot proceeded to lock them in their home, cut off all communication (can't have them call for pizza you know), and put them on a weight loss program with no lower limit. The story ended implying that they would eventually starve to death.
This benevolent master computer we might someday create could lead to some utopia of unending peace and freedom. It could also turn into a horror story as we are all slowly killed by the kindness of this benevolent master.
Would these be actual skulls or just images of them? Are we talking human skulls or would the skull of an animal do? How about the skull of a bald eagle? We've killed just about every other symbol of freedom in this country so, why not?
It's not that I don't believe you, quite the opposite really, but I'd like to see an article or something to back this up. I've had people claim that we need to have TSA style checkpoints everywhere or "the terrorists win" or something just as terrifying. When anyone tells the TSA to get bent that's news to me and worthy of saving for posterity.
I'll generally agree with this argument. This makes sense to me. If I'm being bombarded with RF then I should have the right to examine what I'm being bombarded with.
I will suggest that someone could argue that there is a difference in examining the content of the radio signal, as in listening in to the conversation, and in using the radio signal to track the source of that signal. One could argue that there is a difference in listening in on the radio conversations of police cars and using the radios in those cars to track their movements.
Wasn't there an article on Slashdot before about a technique that used radio emitters like Wi-Fi stations, CFL bulbs, refrigerator motors, and so on to make a passive device that could see through walls? If I am allowed to examine the content of the radio signals to that level then I can watch what my neighbors are doing in considerable detail. I also recall reading somewhere that use of such devices (whether they use IR or RF) by police was prohibited without a warrant. Private parties are not held to the same standards as police so a use like this might be lawful. I'd think that some sort of notification by the observer might be needed to keep this level of observation legal, sort of like the notice that cameras might be used in dressing rooms in clothing stores.
Perhaps. I flew out to my sister's place before. I've also flown quite a bit prior to 9/11. I used to be able to save a few bucks on travel by packing drinks and snacks to take with me on the plane. I can't do that anymore. A couple cans of Mt. Dew and a big bag of Doritos at the grocery store would cost about $2.50. Buying that at the airport would cost $10.
The cost of the food is a minor thing since I'd probably just end up spending the money on something else I didn't need. What really killed things for me is the insult to my intelligence that they call airport security. I used to find airports to be almost serene, there was rarely a rush and the security was something I really didn't think about. I'd show up, check in, empty my pockets, walk through the metal detector, pick up my bag from the x-ray, and then sit in what used to be a relatively quiet airport until called to board.
Now I have to show up at least an hour early so that I have enough time to get through security before my flight. I have to take off my shoes and belt. I have to have an ID handy to show to the security goons. I have not been groped or x-rayed before but I'm quite sure I would not enjoy the experience. I have this constant fear that I'll be detained or my luggage taken from me while in the airport. This is reinforced by the constant reminders over the PA that any unattended luggage will be taken by security to be shot, spindled, mutilated, exploded, and then buried in an unmarked landfill.
As a further insult I had to pay an extra $50 to check in a bag on my flight, $25 each way. Who flies with only a backpack to carry on the plane? If I did want to take a firearm on the plane there is a process to do that. This takes more time, adds more stress (since a screw up in the process can mean felony charges), and would likely involve more cost (since I cannot carry-on a firearm).
Flying used to be fun. The TSA took all the fun out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seen at the bottom of Slashdot's pages today:
"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know. -- Michel de Montaigne"
This is not a new concept. I've heard many people claim that the average voter is too stupid, too ignorant, too emotional, or some such to vote. That we need to have some smart people make the decisions for them.
Two problems I see with this claim. First is that we've had this system for over two centuries. This is the longest lasting government in contemporary times. As flawed as the system is now, and has become, it has outlived all the others.
The second problem I have with the idea of having "benevolent dictators" decide what is best for us is the problem of choosing these people. Do we take a vote? Well, that's effectively what we do now. Every two years a large portion of them come up for elections.
For a government to last it must have the permission of the governed. Without a certain level of agreement between the governing body and the governed the governed will disobey, revolt, cast off the governing body.
If you don't like having to require the permission of another to tell them what to do then... good luck with that. They outnumber you.
Make them leave their brains in their cars. ...
Oh, it appears they already have.
Why would he move to Antarctica? Is it warmer there than Dearborn, Michigan?
No need to take bets, we already know who wins.
Mr. Rogers
What about the people that operate the machines? Do they get to opt out too?
You make good points. If the government is prohibited from searching without probable cause, how would you have our society be protected from airplane terrorists?
How do we protect trains, shopping malls, or just about anything else from terrorists? The answer is, we don't. Why is that? Because terror attacks are very rare. It's also because terror attacks typically take the same form as any other crime. So, on one level we can protect our airplanes from terror attacks the same way we currently protect subways from terror attacks, by watching out for the common thug.
I will admit that the analogy is not perfect. If there is a problem on a train there is always the option to stop the train and chase everyone out to the side of the tracks. There would be likely some need to screen people for materials that should not be on an airplane. This search should be done by airline or airport employees. If there is a need these screeners can be sworn officers much like railroad police, they have arrest powers but they are still employees of a private corporation. Private employees work under different motivations than public employees, it's those motivations that will keep them from getting out of hand like the TSA has.
To keep the airplanes safe we need layers of protection. Have screeners, employed by the airline/airport, screen for obvious threats. Have company police roam the airports and ride in the airplanes. Bolt the doors to the flight deck. Arm the pilots. Arm the crew. Hell, even allow the passengers to be armed. If the thugs get something passed the screeners we need to have a crew capable of responding while they are still in flight.
The only real change that needs to be done is to put the owners of the aircraft in charge of the security of the aircraft. Let them decide who gets to fly. Just so long as they don't have some sort of policies that make "flying while Arab" grounds to deny service then I can see them doing a much better job than any government employee.
Seriously I could write a book on the topic. I can't fit a book inside some web browser text box so I have to keep it short. One basic premise to remember is that it is not the government's job to keep us safe. Our safety is our own responsibility. The safety of the airframe is the responsibility of the owners. Keep the government out of it until they are specifically asked to do so. If the company police catch someone doing something they should not then they can arrest this person and hand them over to the government. Until then the government needs to stay out.
Then you are not looking. Do a Google search sometime.
In effect everyone going through an airport screening has been arrested. Arrest means to stop with legal authority. The TSA agents stop everyone at the checkpoint and are effectively accusing them of a crime. The difference here is that the Senator has been arrested for an unexpectedly long time, causing him to miss the opening of a session of the Senate. This is old news, people getting arrested at the airport, with a new twist, this time it was a legislator on his way to a session of Congress.
The executive branch of the federal government has been pissing on the US Constitution for a very long time with the TSA, it's just that this time they chose to piss on Article I, Section 6.
Sorry, but you don't have a constitutional right to fly on an airplane without being searched.
That's true. But you do have a constitutionally protected right to fly on an airplane without being searched by the government.
The government is prohibited from searching unless there is probable cause. With millions of people flying on airplanes every year without trying to blow them up there is no cause for the government to search every passenger. The airlines can search passengers if they like as a condition of flying but the government cannot. If an airline employee performing the search finds something potentially illegal then that employee can report that to law enforcement if they like. They can also choose to ignore the illegal act. TSA employees do not have that choice, if they see a potentially illegal act they must report it.
With the TSA doing the search the government now has checkpoints all over the country with a blank check to search for anything. This turns the assumption of innocence until proven guilty upside down. Now everyone is assumed to be guilty of breaking some law and therefore the government can now search for evidence to use against you in a court of law. This has gone beyond keeping the aircraft safe and is now a dragnet to search for drugs, deadbeat dads, fake ID cards, child porn, and other stuff. I'm all about finding deadbeat dads but I don't like being treated like one because I chose to fly.
Also, this is not a consensual search. A consensual search means that the consent can be revoked at any time. What the TSA has done is removed that possibility by forcing people to be searched under the penalty of jail time and/or severe fines. Once the search starts the TSA will not allow you to remove your consent. If the TSA allowed people to revoke their consent to the search this might be tolerable but this has reached into madness. This is obviously no longer about keeping the aircraft safe since if it was they should be pleased with themselves that a potential threat just walked away from the airport. If the threat walked away they did their job. But their job is no longer about keeping the aircraft safe. I'm not even sure how to define their job any more.
What the TSA has done here is delayed a Senator from attending a congressional session. They delayed him even after he's gone through a search of his luggage, passed through a magnetometer, and has generally proved he was not armed. This was a violation of the Constitutional powers granted to the executive branch many times over.
Listen, I'd have major problems if there was anything the government was doing to me when I don't have the potential to harm others.
Then I am confused as to why you are defending the TSA. Senator Paul was not a threat to that aircraft. They knew this. If they really thought he was a threat he would not have been allowed on a later flight. If they really thought he was a threat then he'd have been charged with attempted murder right now.
He allowed himself to be scanned with the mm-wave full body scanner, had his bags searched, went through the magnetometer and bomb sniffer, but drew the line at a pat down. He was obviously not armed and yet the TSA wanted to search further for... what exactly? If this is "breach of the peace" then the federal government can arrest people for farting in an elevator.
The TSA could argue that if they like. I'd like to see them do so in a court of law.
Oh, and the TSA is claiming the Senator was not "detained". I believe the words were "denied access to the secure area" and "escorted out by local law enforcement". Being "escorted" unwillingly by police sounds like detainment to me. This is something else I'd like to see them argue in a court of law.
Efficiency is not paramount. I had an "efficient" car before. It burned about 2/3 as much gas as my current truck per mile. It also got stuck several times in the snow... in my own driveway. I'm quite happy burning more fuel now since it means I don't have to dig myself out of my own driveway. Or walk home because my car got stuck in the road. When Ford comes out with a plug-in electric F-150 truck then we can talk.
Your "end of story" comment implies to me that nothing I could say could convince you of anything. Okay, fine, electric vehicles will rule the world. Whatever. Time will tell who is right.
I knew someone would make a reply like yours.
It's one thing for the government to keep factories from dumping solvents into the rivers. It's quite another for the government to tell a corporation that they cannot build a factory in another state because it might be detrimental to the ability of the labor union to dictate their wages.
Boeing wanted to build a factory in, IIRC, South Carolina. The labor union in Washington state didn't like this because they felt the competition from a right to work state would be detrimental to their future wages. Whether this was true or not is debatable. The union complained to the sympathetic federal government and got the government to block the construction of the factory.
Now Boeing cannot build more planes. The airlines are going to need more planes. If Boeing can't make them at a competitive price, or make them at all because of federal mandates, then Airbus gets the sales instead.
That's just one example of government stepping in to "protect" the domestic workforce and have it blow up in their face.
This is not a problem business's solve, it requires a government solution.
To me there are very few problems that only the government can solve. This is certainly not one of them. When we have the government dictating economic policy to this level we have something approaching socialism. Central planning of the economy has never turned out well. This could also be considered isolationism, where we limit our economic interactions with the rest of the world to benefit domestic production. The problem with both of these policies is reduced competition, higher prices, lowered (economic) freedoms, and more reasons for the government to get involved to fix the problems the government created in the first place.
The long game of course is to bring developed nations down to the level of the developing nations.
Or the long game is to raise the developing nations to the level of the developed nations.
I've already seen this happen. A contract is made to outsource some development of a product to a foreign entity. They provide their services and next time a new contract is negotiated. The quality of the previous product is used to negotiate the new contract. Either the quality is good and the contractor demands a higher price, or the quality was poor and the one making the offer demands a lower price. Over time these jobs almost inevitably go to domestic contractors because the cost/benefit will favor someone that shares a culture/language and a work schedule. Having 8:00 AM teleconferences with people that are at 6:00 PM their time are not always productive since people on this end of the phone have not yet had their second cup of coffee and the people on the other end want to get on the next train home. There were also issues of talking with people that had English as a second language, something tended to be lost in translation.
Some economists and historians believe it was government intervention like this that brought about the Great Depression. I'm not sure if I believe them, since there is plenty of evidence to the contrary as well. The point is that I just don't like the idea of any government telling a company like Apple where they can build their factories. If they government can tell them where to build their factory can the government also tell them what products to produce? The price that the products must be sold? How much profit they are allowed to make?
Get the government out of private business. I've seen how well the government runs things like the postal service and how well they are maintaining our bridges. Let them focus on the jobs they were mandated to perform and keep out of dictating to private businesses how they should run their factories.
1) The efficiency of using a stationary natural gas power plant to charge an electric vehicle is not the only factor in the viability of doing this as a shift away from foreign oil and/or reducing one's carbon footprint. (I mention both because some people, like myself, are not terribly concerned with their carbon footprint but are concerned about foreign energy destroying the economy.)
One other issue is that of range. An electric vehicle will need a recharge every 50 miles or so while a natural gas vehicle will need a fill up every 200 miles or so. A recharge takes hours, a fill up takes minutes. Barring some massive shift in infrastructure (swappable batteries) and/or technology (higher density electric storage) electric vehicles will not be viable for planes, trains, trucks, buses, and ships. Natural gas is viable for these needs, if a bit less convenient than liquid fuels.
2) We would not be stuck on fossil fuels. Natural gas can be synthesized. Natural gas is primarily methane but the synthetic alternative does not have to contain any carbon, it could be a mixture of ammonia and hydrogen for example. The energy to produce this synthetic fuel could come from wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever.
A natural gas vehicle has just about all the advantages of a gasoline vehicle while burning a domestically produced fuel with a reduced carbon output. If the natural gas gets too expensive then there is the possibility of making a synthetic alternative and placing it in the same pipes we already have for the natural gas. There is a possibility of considerable losses because of the conversions involved but this can be addressed by using off peak power and intermittent power (wind and solar for example) that might otherwise be wasted anyway. Part of the problem with nuclear power is that the power output cannot be changed rapidly. With the ability to synthesize ammonia and/or methane with the excess power output the nuclear power plant can be run at peak efficiency all the time.
This also does not rule out the use of a vehicle like the Chevy Volt that uses electricity for short trips but only needs the use of a natural gas internal combustion engine for things like long trips and extreme cold temperatures. With the use of synthesized natural gas there is no dependence on fossil fuels and people can use whatever source of energy is cheapest or most convenient.
Why would I buy an electric vehicle when the electricity is produced with natural gas? Why don't I just burn the natural gas in my vehicle?
I get your point, reduce our carbon footprint with a shift in fuels. The problem with that policy is that the energy in coal cannot be legislated away. We can cap and tax all we want but people will still burn coal. There is only so much natural gas that we can produce. The faster we burn it, the rarer it gets, the more expensive it becomes. Basic economics.
If people want to see the world shift away from fossil fuels then there needs to be an alternative that is better. Better can mean a lot of things but it can almost always be boiled down to costs. Right now electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal can easily cost double that from coal. Even if coal prices were to triple we'd still be burning coal since coal does not need the wind to blow, the sun to shine, or a specific geological formation.
I see nuclear as the next step. Just like coal it works rain or shine. Also, like coal nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar, and geothermal. Nuclear is possibly cheaper than natural gas. We still use natural gas despite its cost because it makes for a cheap peak power source. That is cheap as in cheaper than fuel oil or other forms of producing the electricity.
For wind, wave, solar, and so on to replace coal the price gap, and reliability gap, will have to narrow considerably.
Bringing this back to vehicles the performance gap on electric vs. internal combustion will have to close as well. It will take some real changes on pricing and technology before we see long haul trucking run on electricity.
Just a reminder, just about every kind of power station can generate energy more efficiently than a car.
I agree. What bothers me though is that for these plug in electric vehicles to meet the claim of a lower carbon footprint the power is going to have to come from something other than coal. A coal fired power plant can achieve 60% efficiency. A common internal combustion engine used in a car can get about 30% efficiency, some as high as 40%. All the energy from the coal is coming from carbon. In a vehicle powered by gasoline or diesel fuel half of the energy is from carbon, half from hydrogen, give or take.
Even though the power plant gets 60% efficiency there is some losses from the transmission lines, battery charging and discharging, and other losses along the way. Some of these losses when comparing a plug in electric and an internal combustion powered car are a wash since the car will be exposed to losses due to wind resistance and such regardless of where the energy comes from.
With some quick research on things like heat engine efficiencies, where our electricity comes from, and bit of chemistry I can do some quick estimates on how much carbon is released into the atmosphere per mile driven. I've come to the conclusion that an electric car is really just a coal powered car and the amount of carbon per mile is pretty much identical to the gasoline powered car.
Sure, I could lower my carbon footprint by trading in my truck for a little car like the Chevy Volt but I could also get the same level of carbon output reduction for a fraction of the price by trading in my truck for a ten year old small gasoline powered car. The real savings in carbon comes not from being electric but from being a smaller, lighter, vehicle. I had a ten year old gasoline powered car and I didn't like it very much so I traded it in for a small SUV. I'm much happier now, especially since the snow began to fall. Getting stuck in the snow used to be a common occurrence but is now just a bad memory. You will have to pry my truck from my cold dead hands. I don't give a damn about carbon footprints when stuck in the snow 30 miles from home, or even two blocks from home.
You can argue which comes first, the electric car or the nuclear power plants, if you like. It's my belief that the nuclear power plants need to come first. I need to see a real demonstration of the intent to remove ourselves from fossil fuels before I buy an electric vehicle. I'm not going to buy an electric vehicle in the hope a nuclear power plant will come to lower my carbon output, the car will likely be obsolete first. This is all irrelevant to me until I can get my hands on an electric vehicle that can carry me, my guns, and my game home from the hunting grounds without getting stuck in the mud and snow.
When it comes to tail pip emissions other than CO2 I'm also not convinced on "clean coal" producing less pollution. With the low sulfur fuels, catalytic converters, engine control units monitoring the exhaust I believe the car emissions to be quite "clean". This is compared to coal plants that buy the cheapest, and therefore dirtiest, fuel they can get by with. I've heard stories of how many of these plants will "blow the pipes" at night to clear out all the soot when no one is watching.
It's going to take quite a bit to convince me to buy an electric vehicle. I might be running my truck off of oil piped in from Canada and Mexico instead of domestic coal and natural gas but at least I'm not getting stuck in the snow. I'll wait for some nuclear power plants and some 4WD electric trucks before I wean myself from gasoline.
If that is true then doesn't it concern you in the slightest that there is simply no observations to support your hypothesis?
With all that I wrote that is what you chose to focus on? Let's assume that the observed global warming is caused by human activity, so what are we supposed to do about it?
I want to get past the argument on whether or not we have man made global warming. I want to get past the argument on whether or not global warming even exists, man made or not. I want to see an energy policy that people can agree upon whether they are convinced on the existence of man made global warming or not.
There is a lot of things that are not up for debate. Or at least a lot harder to refute. One of those is that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Another is that unless you cook your food over cattle dung you fall in one of two groups, you buy your energy from a politically unstable oil exporting nation or you live in one. This dependence on oil will lead to problems one way or another, I believe the term is "resource wars".
There is a proven energy source out there that just about every nation can develop once they can get past cooking over cattle dung. This energy source is cheap, plentiful, safe, and has a low carbon footprint. This is nuclear fission power. Any nation capable of building large scale coal fired power plants should be able to move to nuclear power.
Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass fuels are cute but they cannot support an industrialized nation. Things like refining iron, powering trains, and heavy industry in general need the energy density that only fossil fuels and nuclear power can provide. Sure, there might be some future technology that offers another choice but right now its nuclear power, fossil fuels, or living in a grass hut and cooking over cattle dung.
At some point we are gong to have to move away from fossil fuels. They are either going to just plain run out or, more likely, the people that have them are not going to be willing to give them up. That means we have to live in grass huts or switch to nuclear power.
The whole global warming issue is irrelevant to me. I just don't care any more. Let's talk about solutions. I propose nuclear power.
I've given up arguing over the questionable scientific methods used to support man made global warming. It's my belief that the current warming trends have more to do with variations in the Earth's orbit and/or solar activity than any gasses we produce in the burning of fossil fuels. Instead of arguing over that the debate is not over I will instead point out the problems with many so called solutions to the so called global warming problem.
There are many "solutions" to the problems that involve government taxation for the "polluters" (carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet and yet it's a "pollutant"?) and government credits for those that are somehow "harmed" or wronged by this pollution and/or those that choose a means of obtaining energy that is deemed to have a lower carbon footprint. This is wealth redistribution. This is government welfare. This is communism.
If one were to place the sources of electricity in order of their carbon footprint, from least to greatest, the first one would be hydroelectric. Since just about every river worth a dam on this planet has already been dammed up there is little growth left to produce more power. After that comes nuclear power, there's plenty of room for growth here. Then comes, not necessarily in order, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and wave/tidal power sources. I believe that pretty much covers all the non-fossil fuel sources, which leaves us, in order, natural gas, fuel oil, and coal.
The problem with wind and solar is that they are intermittent. The sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow. These energy sources are also very expensive. To address their intermittent nature requires energy storage, load shedding, and/or a backup power source. Implementing any of these things to address the intermittent nature of wind and solar only adds to the cost. As my dad pointed out, if you are going to need all of those natural gas backup generators to make up for the lost load when the wind does not turn the windmills then why not just run the natural gas generators and don't even bother with the windmills?
Using biomass for fuel means turning over arable land, lots of it, to produce fuel instead of food. That means food and energy prices go up. It also means removing biomass "waste" from the fields instead of plowing it back into the soil. That lost carbon and nitrogen would have to be replaced chemically, this typically involves fertilizers derived from fossil fuels (most commonly natural gas). So again, instead of burning the corn, switch grass, sugar beets or whatever and using natural gas derived fertilizers why don't we just burn the natural gas and leave the biomass in the fields as fertilizer?
Geothermal shows promise but, like hydroelectric, it relies on favorable geologic formations. These favorable geothermal locations do not typically coincide with favorable living conditions.
All these so called "solutions" to our carbon output involve increased reliance on fossil fuels (in backup power, materials, idled power plants) or involve seriously increased costs of energy (due to wealth redistribution, expensive alternatives, or redundancies to account for unreliability). The only exception to that is nuclear power. Despite the low carbon footprint, relatively low cost, and it's ability to be placed just about anywhere, very few people will consider it as a viable solution.
I believe we should still experiment with technologies like wind and solar. These have uses beyond just electric grid power, such as producing power where fossil fuels and nuclear power are not practical. These can also provide competition to keep prices low. Geothermal and hydroelectric also make sense when geologic formations make them viable. They are also favorable because of their affordable power.
IMHO, biomass as fuel is a terrible idea. Civilizations have died off because they were burning their food.
To me the only real solution to lowering our carbon output into the atmosphere is n
Lets not restrict the sale of guns but lets catch them after we have given them millions of guns to alot of people. Guns violence kill more people in a half a year that every terrorist attack against america combined. 11 thousand deaths a year can be attributed to it.
Gun violence kills people? No, people kill people. The gun is a tool, like a shovel or a hammer. The tool holds no malice, it can be used for good or evil depending on the heart of the person wielding it.
I like how people do not read the hole thing and just the last half of the law.
I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia.
First, I am a member of the militia. As a male citizen that has not yet reached the age of 45 I am a member of the militia under federal law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Second, YOU need to read the whole thing. You even quoted it and yet you did not read it.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The amendment states that the militia is to be regulated. You can regulate the militia into oblivion if you like but the right to keep and bear arms still remains protected from government infringement. The Supreme Court of the United States has even pointed this out in recent opinions. The right of keeping arms (that whole "bear" thing is still being debated) is not dependent on membership in the militia. The first half of the Second Amendment is a "declarative clause" and therefore only states the reason for the amendment to exist. The second half is the "operative clause" which can stand on its own and the government must act upon. The declarative clause merely states the desired outcome of the operative clause, it is not the only outcome that is possible. This outcome might be achieved by other means but that does not negate the operative clause.
A computer capable of viewing us as children might feel the desire to protect us as a parent would do. This protection they provide might be well intentioned but also very detrimental to our own survival. This would not be out of hatred or malevolence but because of a lack of foresight or information.
This has a parallel with a parent that is so overprotective of a child that the person grows up to be naive, misinformed, lacking in basic survival skills, and/or lacking in other ways necessary to live as an adult. We also see this in government programs which are supposed to help people but instead leave them worse off than before. The intention for good is there but because of some failing in the means the end is not achieved.
There's plenty of science fiction that plays on this. A common theme is of a computer system that slowly takes over the mundane tasks of our lives. This evolves to where the computer takes over less mundane, essentially becoming our government. The terrible end to mankind comes when this caregiver computer fails, goes "insane", or does not account for some factor outside the scope of its programming. The "X factor" has varied in these stories from human ambition, alien invasion, disease, some natural disaster, or some combination of those factors.
What we perceive as a malevolent act might be considered something the computer views as necessary for the improvement of mankind (on a wide scale) or for the improvement of its own master (on the small scale). One story that comes to mind is a short story of a family that bought a robotic maid to cook for them and help them lose weight. The robot suffered damage in an attempt by the father to change the parameters of the diet. The robot proceeded to lock them in their home, cut off all communication (can't have them call for pizza you know), and put them on a weight loss program with no lower limit. The story ended implying that they would eventually starve to death.
This benevolent master computer we might someday create could lead to some utopia of unending peace and freedom. It could also turn into a horror story as we are all slowly killed by the kindness of this benevolent master.
Also we need new uniforms. With skulls on them.
Would these be actual skulls or just images of them? Are we talking human skulls or would the skull of an animal do? How about the skull of a bald eagle? We've killed just about every other symbol of freedom in this country so, why not?
It's not that I don't believe you, quite the opposite really, but I'd like to see an article or something to back this up. I've had people claim that we need to have TSA style checkpoints everywhere or "the terrorists win" or something just as terrifying. When anyone tells the TSA to get bent that's news to me and worthy of saving for posterity.
Besides, the post-balloon range is only ~50 miles. This isn't useful for deeply penetrating an opponent's airspace.
It would be useful in targeting artillery.
I'll generally agree with this argument. This makes sense to me. If I'm being bombarded with RF then I should have the right to examine what I'm being bombarded with.
I will suggest that someone could argue that there is a difference in examining the content of the radio signal, as in listening in to the conversation, and in using the radio signal to track the source of that signal. One could argue that there is a difference in listening in on the radio conversations of police cars and using the radios in those cars to track their movements.
Wasn't there an article on Slashdot before about a technique that used radio emitters like Wi-Fi stations, CFL bulbs, refrigerator motors, and so on to make a passive device that could see through walls? If I am allowed to examine the content of the radio signals to that level then I can watch what my neighbors are doing in considerable detail. I also recall reading somewhere that use of such devices (whether they use IR or RF) by police was prohibited without a warrant. Private parties are not held to the same standards as police so a use like this might be lawful. I'd think that some sort of notification by the observer might be needed to keep this level of observation legal, sort of like the notice that cameras might be used in dressing rooms in clothing stores.
Perhaps. I flew out to my sister's place before. I've also flown quite a bit prior to 9/11. I used to be able to save a few bucks on travel by packing drinks and snacks to take with me on the plane. I can't do that anymore. A couple cans of Mt. Dew and a big bag of Doritos at the grocery store would cost about $2.50. Buying that at the airport would cost $10.
The cost of the food is a minor thing since I'd probably just end up spending the money on something else I didn't need. What really killed things for me is the insult to my intelligence that they call airport security. I used to find airports to be almost serene, there was rarely a rush and the security was something I really didn't think about. I'd show up, check in, empty my pockets, walk through the metal detector, pick up my bag from the x-ray, and then sit in what used to be a relatively quiet airport until called to board.
Now I have to show up at least an hour early so that I have enough time to get through security before my flight. I have to take off my shoes and belt. I have to have an ID handy to show to the security goons. I have not been groped or x-rayed before but I'm quite sure I would not enjoy the experience. I have this constant fear that I'll be detained or my luggage taken from me while in the airport. This is reinforced by the constant reminders over the PA that any unattended luggage will be taken by security to be shot, spindled, mutilated, exploded, and then buried in an unmarked landfill.
As a further insult I had to pay an extra $50 to check in a bag on my flight, $25 each way. Who flies with only a backpack to carry on the plane? If I did want to take a firearm on the plane there is a process to do that. This takes more time, adds more stress (since a screw up in the process can mean felony charges), and would likely involve more cost (since I cannot carry-on a firearm).
Flying used to be fun. The TSA took all the fun out of it.