| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/2/22 [Uncategorized] UID:49212 Activity:nil |
2/21 triple flusher this morning |
| 2008/2/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49213 Activity:high |
2/21 Isn't it weird that assassinated or attempted assassinated
presidents are usually portrayed as good presidents in
media, books, etc? Do we EVER say bad things to people in their
obituaries? I mean, if president Nixon was assassinated, would
we say nicer things today?
\_ Well thank god no one tried anything funny on George W Bush,
otherwise he'd be known as a great President. -Democrat
\_ Counterexample: Gerald Ford. -tom
\_ listen up tom holub, the key word is usually
\_ I'm not sure Ford is a good example, his obits seem
positive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/863634.stm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2e9n3k (washingtonpost.com)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y5yxvu (telegraph.co.uk)
And the only real "bad thing" I've ever heard
about Ford that I've heard (from non-kooks) is that
he was klutzy.
And the only really "bad thing" I've ever heard re
Ford (from non-kooks) is that he was klutzy.
\_ Ford was ineffectual. Obits are never negative; even
Nixon got transformed into a respected elder statesman. -tom
\- Notes on the Passing of an American Monster:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
There were plenty of negative comments upon the death
of the Indonesian Crook Suharto.
There were plenty of negative comments about
Benazir Bhutto. By Shashi Tharoor, William Darymple etc.
Not a pol but see: http://www.slate.com/id/2111506
YMWTFG(samuel johnson lapidary)
YMWTGF(samuel johnson lapidary)
You guys dont know what you are talking about.
\_ Nixon just looks better relative to the current disaster
in chief. They are both crooks but I don't remember Nixon
accused of being incompetent and/or intellectually stunted.
\- i have kind of a soft spot for nixon [and musharaf]
but it is kinda hard to compare W and RMN because
the time have changed. for example W would never make
the times have changed. for example W would never make
the kinds comments to Condi about being black as Nixon
did to SuperK about being jewish. but of course SAGENEW
never shot an old man in the face and then got him to
apologize to the country.
\_ I hear "A Legacy of Ashes" isn't kind to JFK, but I haven't read
it yet.
\_ key word: usually
\_ This may be the best motd meme since "obviously you've
never served."
\_ "Richard Nixon, hero of his age, began the long painful draw down
of troops which later led to the end of the Vietnam conflict, also
responsible for opening China to the West, ending the long cold war
with our former foe, he shall always be remembered as the greatest
American President of his era before he was assassinated by unknown
Democrats".
agents".
\_ Pinochet had some pretty mixed obituaries, but no I have never
seen a bad one for an assassinated US President. You might be
able to find one written by a foreign newspaper.
\_ I was in Santiago the day Pinochet died:
http://flickr.com/photos/tholub/365629145 -tom
\_ Reagan was attempted assassination, and supposedly he was a bad
president.
\_ He defeated an EVIL communist regime and his STAR WARS
legacy helped us advance our space programs. He is an
all American HERO and a nice looking actor.
\_ Thanks to Star Wars we got to shoot down a sattelite.
And the fact that the weather cooperated.
\_ ... and the fact that the satellite is in a lower
altitude than normal orbiting ones.
\_ But not lower than an ICBM. |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:49214 Activity:nil |
2/22 House GOP plaigarizes new season of 24:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9iXX1fT3A
\_ Dude this is awsome!
\_ Yeah, they've got the Jerry Bruckheimer vote in the bag.
\_ key word: usually |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:49215 Activity:high |
2/22 How much does rail cost per mile as compared to a road both for
design and acquisition and also ongoing maintenance?
\_ How many lanes of a road? What's the price of land? Land for one
lane-mile of road is certainly cheaper in rural Nebraska than in
Bay Area. Of course the same applies to rail too, but rail
ususally occupies much less land.
usually occupies much less land.
\_ key word!
\_ Assume the land cost is not an issue. You are going to build
on land you already own. As for how many lanes, something
functionally equivalent. 2 lanes for a line going nowhere
and maybe 12 lanes for a main artery. For sake of argument
assume a 4 lane road (2 each direction) versus 2 tracks (1
each direction).
each direction), but if you can compare each lane of road
with each line of track that's just as good.
\_ Why would you assume land cost is not an issue? A 10-lane
freeway takes 3-4 times as much land as a dual-track rail
line.
\_ Because it's not one of my assumptions? I don't want
the cost of land to complicate things, because then
you get into tunnels versus surface and all kinds of
other issues. Assume that the land is not part of the
cost and we can add it in later if need be.
cost and we can add it in later.
\_ Until one of those tracks is blocked and the whole rail
line stops for most of the day leaving all passengers
stuck. You really need 3 tracks to avoid that problem
but you'll never get 3 tracks in the real world.
\_ An overturned truck can also block all lanes of one
direction of a freeway. It happened on 101S in Redwood
City on Jan 29. What's worse is that it also
significantly slowed down 101N which was not blocked at
all because of its spectator value. A stopped train
direction of a freeway. It happened on 101 in Redwood
City on Jan 29. What's worse is that a freeway accident
in one directory also slows down the other direction
because of its spectator value. A stopped train
blocking a track doesn't slow down trains on the track
in the opposite direction.
\_ I'm on a train. It stops. I'm fucked. I'm in my
car. There's a problem on the bridge. Unless I'm
already on the bridge I can turn off and go another
way, go home, go to Starbuck's, etc. If the train
was your only means of transportation, then you and
everyone else are 100% stuck, even people who have
not left home yet. Car mobility >>> train mobility.
\_ How often does this actually happen? I can imagine
all kinds of catastrophies that effect cars more
often than a grade seperated train, in fact that
often than a grade separated train, in fact that
is how it actually works in the real world. The
variability for driving from Antioch -> SF is
much higher than it is for taking BART.
train reliability >>>> car reliability
train safety >>>>> car safety
\_ Anecdote: I took Amtrak in December. The
train was stopped for 5 hours because someone
decided to end his life by getting drunk and
sitting on the tracks. I was told this happens
a fair bit around Christmas time. Of course
they had to stop the train for the
investigation team to get there, and also to
change the engineers (who had a right to a
'vacation' since they basically ended a human
life and couldn't stop it). -- ilyas
\_ Obviously, you don't commute to/from
Los Angeles and suburbs on the 405,
the 101, the 10, like most of the
Angelinos.
\_ According to this Keanu Reeves movie I
saw once, one is to stay off LA freeways.
-- ilyas
\_ Anecdote: I routinely drive from SF to
Sacramento to visit the in-laws. Twice out
of the last five trips, a 70 minute drive
took four hours, for no reason that I could
figure out. I decided that henceforth, I
would rather spend 2 1/2 hrs on the train
than 4 hours stuck in traffic, especially
since I have a toddler that would rather
run around than be stuck in a car seat. Plus,
my chance of getting killed by some bad
driver is much, much lower. And it costs
run around than be stuck in a car seat.
Plus, my chance of getting killed by some
bad driver is much, much lower. And it costs
about the same either way.
\_ If you are stuck on a train it's usually a lot
nicer than being stuck in a car, or in stop+go.
Unless you are in some fancy car with a chauffeur,
perhaps.
Then again, thinking of my old BART experience and
the weird people that sometimes shared my train
car, I might rethink this position.
\_ I was stuck on the Bay Bridge for five hours when
a truck fire closed it.
\- me too. it took 20min to drive through the
tunnel. people were running out of gas, falling
alseep etc.
\_ Rail is much cheaper to operate in a per passenger mile kind of way,
but I don't know about in a mile kind of way. That question doesn't
but I don't know about in a mile kind of way. You question doesn't
really make sense, since an unused freeway or railway costs less
to maintain.
\_ If it's unused it still costs the same, at least the rail
does, because it still needs to run regularly whether ridership
is low or not. Maybe highways cost a lot less to maintain with
less use. Not sure. You can assume both are used at full
capacity if it produces some numbers. I know rail is cheaper per
passenger mile if every train is full, but that's not my
question. Also, there's still the whole part about the cost to
build if you can't answer the maintenance question. I
suspect that roads cost the government less, because a big part
of the costs (the vehicle, fuel, and even some construction
via fuel taxes) are paid for by private parties. How does
this compare with the fares paid versus the rail costs? Two
numbers fall out, which are overall cost and cost to the
government. I suspect overall cost is higher for roads, but
cost to the government is higher for rail.
\_ That's a matter of the choices we make. We could make
drivers pay the full cost and tax to pay for rail, instead
of the other way around, if we wanted to. One could argue
that that is the morally defensible position. -tom
\_ I think the goal should be for the government to pay
as little as possible and let the free market decide
which makes more sense. These calculations are
difficult, but the markets can find the efficiency.
End all subsidies to rail and roads and see where you
end up. I suspect in most places it will be roads and
no rail system.
\_ That's an ideological stance; do you have any facts
to support it? It is well known that markets do
a poor job of pricing externalities like pollution.
And in places where drivers pay a larger portion of
the cost of driving than they do in the U.S., they
drive less and have better rail systems. -tom
\_ Better question: Do you have any evidence that
command economies do a better job than the free
market, because there's a lot of evidence to the
contrary.
\_ There is plenty of evidence that countries which
fund more infrastructure centrally have better
infrastructure. This should be obvious. -tom
\_ Well, duh. But is that the right choice?
\_ That's not what he asked.
\_ What he asked is a straw man; I'm not
arguing for a command economy. -tom
\_ Yes, you are when you are advocating
determining what the market is or
should be instead of letting the
free market handle the problem.
\_ The free market cannot handle the
problem; the free market will choose
the solution with the greatest
cost externality. At the very least
you need the government to
internalize the costs so a market
is plausible. -tom
\_ Oh, I think the free market can
handle it just fine. Why do
you think otherwise?
\_ how about, the work of various
mathematicians and economists
which shows that the free
market is inefficient when
dealing with externalized
costs? -tom
\_ Which externalized costs
do you think are relevant
here?
\_ The cost of fuel
acquisition and the
effects of pollution,
for two. -tom
\_ Maybe you could provide one real
world example of that happening.
\_ Yes, the free market has
been an unmitigated disaster,
comrade.
\_ Just answer the question,
if you can. We both know
there are no such examples,
and it has been a failure
when tried. Well maybe you
are so ignorant of history
you don't know the latter.
Show me a free market
example of a working
transportation system.
\_ Well, ocean and air
lines... they don't
need to build the
tracks/roads, only use
ports.
When has a free market
transportation system
been tried, in a
country that wasn't
impoverished or in
some anarchic state?
\_ An anarchic state
would be ideal for
the free market to
create solutions,
right? -tom
\_ What a stupid
comment. -- ilyas
\_ $1 billion dollar per mile 3-stop train in China town! trains woot!
\_ Big Dig: $14.6B for 7 miles of road in Boston! Carz rule!
\_ Exactly. Thanks for providing an excellent example of why
we don't want government messing with anything it doesn't
have to.
\_ yeah, because private industry was chomping at the bit to
run a project like the Big Dig. Not to mention the now
$6 billion Bay Bridge project. Oh wait, all those cost
overruns were due to private contractors; funny, that. -tom
\_ Point is that if private industry didn't want to
do it then maybe there's a reason for that and it
shouldn't have been done.
\_ The reason is that private industry does things
which are profitable, not things which are needed.
\_ If it's needed then there is profit in it.
Otherwise, people don't really want it. Why
do you insist on telling people what they want?
\_ I want to breathe clean air, where is the
market for that?
\_ Have you seen ozonizers? Filters?
Companies are working hard to capitalize
on your the demand with alternative
fuel vehicles, fuels, and so on. It's
not an easy problem to solve but the
market will solve it.
\_ Wow... amazing...
Private industry would never have replaced the
eastern span of the Bay Bridge; it's more profitable
to run it the way it is. Do you think the Bay Area
will be better off with a bridge that will survive
an earthquake? What is the value of being able to
travel easily from Oakland to San Francisco? -tom
\_ You are talking about building codes now,
which is ridiculous. Sure, I agree that the
government should safeguard the health of its
citizens to some degree. (I oppose mandatory
cycle helmets, but applaud meat inspectors.)
However, the bridge was just fine for 65
years. It might make more sense to just
operate it until it eventually collapses in a
disaster. I haven't seen any actuarial
tables, but hopefully someone did that study
and how it made more financial sense to
replace it first.
travel easily from Oakland to San Francisco? -tom
\_ So no one has any numbers? What are you basing your opinions
on then? Some numbers would be nice and much more convincing
than this socialist bullshit about how the government knows best
how to spend our dollars. If I want to build a transit system
that goes from San Diego to LA over land that I own then how
much will it cost to do rail vs. road?
\_ I know wher to get the numbers, but I am not willing to waste my
\_ I know where to get the numbers, but I am not willing to waste my
time arguing with a fool. You can use Google as well as I can.
\_ But Google has a liberal bias!
\_ Just post them. No need to argue if you don't want. The
numbers should drive your point home w/o need for any
arguing, hence the original (and unsatisfied) request.
If you show me it costs 50% of the cost of a road to install
a rail system with similar capacity then I'm on board with it.
\_ You may wish to see:
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/how_transit_benefits.cfm
that whole website is chock full of transit info
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/weyrich3.pdf
A Conservative Critique of 12 Anti-Transit Myths
\_ No one is disputing rail can be effective. Is it *cost*
effective? The "myths" article did a very poor job with
that particular "myth" (and some others, too). For
instance, can you replace all roads with rail? No? What % can
you replace? How does that % compare to the % spent on rail?
It's useless to know the total $$$ spent on roads. If everyone
decided to commute by rail tomorrow then how much more
needs to be spent on enhancing and maintaining the rail
system? How much would still need to be spent on roads
regardless? This is the kind of analysis I never see done.
That is why I am in favor of the free market sorting it
out. Every individual's decision will contribute to an
efficient collective decision. If you are going to dictate
transport then you need to do a real freaking analysis
and it won't be easy.
\_ Los Angeles is a perfect example of a free-market
style of creating a city. City planning is too much work,
so why don't we let the developers build wherever they
want, whenever they want, and the rest of the solutions
will come later. Is this Los Angeles your idea of
free market utopia?
\_ Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
\_ What about Chinatown?
\_ We get it. You have an ideology. Thanks for playing. -tom |
| 2008/2/22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:49216 Activity:nil |
2/22 GOP lobbyist Charlie Black now conducting most of his business from
on board the Straight Talk Express
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49217 Activity:nil |
2/22 So when will we know who'll be on the ballot for sure?
\_ After both conventions are over.
\_ Where the front runners don't have enough delegates in either
party and they appoint Reagan vs. Gore.
\_ Stocked up on crack again I see?
\_ Just because both men are dead is no reason they can't be
their party's candidate. Dead people vote. Why can't
they run for office? |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Science/Electric] UID:49218 Activity:nil |
2/22 Cringley suggests that the switch from lead solder may not have
been a good idea:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080221_004346.html
\_ key word: may |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49219 Activity:nil |
2/22 In 2000 and 2004 there were web sites that pointed out a graph
that showed that States with higher average IQ voted D ("smart
people voted for Gore and Kerry"), then there were a lot of
other sites that debunked those charts as urban legend. Where can
I find a definitive/authoritative source that shows how right/wrong
those charts were?
\_ There is no such source. Causality is hard, and these sorts of
claims are basically political bullshit. -- ilyas
\_ http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
\_ "States" don't have an IQ. People do. Very few people have ever
had an IQ test. IQ tests were originally designed to test children.
Their application to adults is sketchy at best. Need to know any
more? |
| 2008/2/22-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Military] UID:49220 Activity:nil |
2/22 Bush Pentagon Office Of Public Affairs inserting itself into election
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179784.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179742.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23301273
http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1203696668.shtml
\_ I'm shocked, shocked
\_ libural URL alert! Don't believe it unless it's on FoxNews. |