Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:29:47PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: Okay, but the thread was, I believe, about the destructive effects of subsidy. So lets yank back that 20 billion just given to the airlines. How would your flight have gone then? Would there even be one? JetBlue launched fairly recently. What percentage of that subsidy did it receive? Sure, you can argue that airports get government subsidies, and that may be true, but to argue that trains are generally better for continental-scope travel is a bit of a stretch. -Declan
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thursday 30 January 2003 10:12 am, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Out here in the Midwest, we have people creating committees all the time to encourage Amtrak to add/change routes. As my dad says, There's a lot of people who want to take a train ride, but no one who wants to ride a train. Amtrak does go through my town on it's way to/from Chicago/California. Other than the fact our departure was delayed SIX hours because the train was that late, my wife and I had a nice trip to Chicago for our one year anniversary. I remember an article in the paper (David Barry ?) in the 80's that thought that Amtrak would be perfect for moving missiles around because you could never guess what their schedule was going to be. -- Neil Johnson, N0SFH http://www.iowatelecom.net/~njohnsn http://www.njohnsn.com/ PGP key available on request.
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
At 8:48 AM -0600 1/30/03, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:41:17AM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 12:04 AM -0800 1/30/03, Tim May wrote: Sometime I take a bus when my car needs to be repaired. From my house to Santa Cruz, a total of 13 miles, it takes a minimum of 80 minutes by bus. For a working person, ... as soon as they can raise the money, they buy cars. Then that 80-minute each way trip drops to 20 minutes. And they can go when they wish, not when the bus schedule permits. I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving. [snip] Exactly. Trains are great. I currently live 80 miles from both Milwaukee and Madison. I recently had to travel from San Diego to San Francisco. I investigated three options (all times are door to door) 1) Flying - about 4 hours - $95 round trip. 2) Driving - about 8 hours - $60 round trip 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? -- -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey! Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
At 12:04 AM -0800 1/30/03, Tim May wrote: Sometime I take a bus when my car needs to be repaired. From my house to Santa Cruz, a total of 13 miles, it takes a minimum of 80 minutes by bus. For a working person, ... as soon as they can raise the money, they buy cars. Then that 80-minute each way trip drops to 20 minutes. And they can go when they wish, not when the bus schedule permits. I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving. I was consulting in San Francisco, about 60 miles from my home. I found that if I rode the train, I could work as I rode, and turn my travel time into billable hours. I also avoided the ruinous parking charges in downtown. Given those facts, I would have taken the train even if the ticket price hadn't been subsidized. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:41:17AM -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 12:04 AM -0800 1/30/03, Tim May wrote: Sometime I take a bus when my car needs to be repaired. From my house to Santa Cruz, a total of 13 miles, it takes a minimum of 80 minutes by bus. For a working person, ... as soon as they can raise the money, they buy cars. Then that 80-minute each way trip drops to 20 minutes. And they can go when they wish, not when the bus schedule permits. I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving. I was consulting in San Francisco, about 60 miles from my home. I found that if I rode the train, I could work as I rode, and turn my travel time into billable hours. I also avoided the ruinous parking charges in downtown. Given those facts, I would have taken the train even if the ticket price hadn't been subsidized. Exactly. Trains are great. I currently live 80 miles from both Milwaukee and Madison. I wouldn't dream of commuting (or moving) to either, but if a train were available, I'd take a job in either in a flash. And I'd choose a train for longer trips, over a plane as well -- much more comfortable, safer, no bullshit with security, etc. I also really like what they do with buses in Portland, OR -- they have platforms for bikes, so you can both bike and bus around the city. Yes, there's some unpleasant folks on buses, but there are on the street as well. The fact is that if trucks hadn't received such a huge subsidy via the public highway system, trains would be self sufficient. Same with airports for the airlines. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:14 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 29 Jan 2003 at 21:08, Tyler Durden wrote: Meanwhile, regulations and governments can give some industries a head start, particularly if a jungle already holds a nice warm niche for the output of those industries. Thus Sematec helped US semiconductors to roar back from the brink of extinction, Sematec was a boondoggle and complete failure I discussed Sematech in my last post. It was, as James says, completely unnecessary. As witnessed by the fact that no significant technologies or methods came out of it...and as evidenced by the fact that no technology startups are being spun out of Sematech. It existed mainly as a jobs program for Texas, which was suffering in the 1980s from the Oil Patch downturn (the so-called neutron buildings of Houston being a symptom: the people are destroyed but the skyscrapers remained standing...the joke took on a second wind when the Enron/Dynegy/etc. problems hit recently). As befitting any jobs program, now there is a Sematech II being set up in depressed upstate New York. All the usual pork barrellers are saying it's just what's needed to help terminally ill Kodak! Do the math. and the buying up (and subsequent dismantling) of lite rail systems in the LA basin in the 30s and 40s apparently had a major impact on the rollout of vehicles Might we have seen much better public transportation in that area if this capitalist coup-d'etat hadn't occurred? Public transport received, and continues to receive enormous subsidies. What can be said to Tyler Durden, a made-up movie character name who gets his economic theory from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Mass transit is usually the first thing given up by those with money. It's a form of the demographic transition which is the same reason Malthus was wrong. Sometime I take a bus when my car needs to be repaired. From my house to Santa Cruz, a total of 13 miles, it takes a minimum of 80 minutes by bus. For a working person, if their time is worth very little or if they just cannot raise the $500 to buy a car and the $800 a year to insure it, then taking the bus is their only choice. But as soon as they can raise the money, they buy cars. Then that 80-minute each way trip drops to 20 minutes. And they can go when they wish, not when the bus schedule permits. And they can go other places the buses don't go (which is nearly everywhere in nearly everyplace I have lived). And so on. In some dense urban areas, or in certain grid layouts, buses make sense. In which case they don't need to be subsidized. But in nearly all places they ARE subsidized...and they are filled with drooling retards, the halt and the lame, kids, oldsters too feeble to drive, and more drooling retards. In an area as large as LA, freeways were the only way to let people (with money, which was nearly everyone) get from Point A to Point B. A series of bus transfers would have made for 2-3 hour bus trips in each direction. The Red Line was in only a stretch in the downtown, and pushing out to the recreational areas near the beaches. It was fine for its time, e.g., the 1920s, but of little use once the city expanded in all directions. The newer forms of mass transit in LA are better-suited than the Roger Rabbitt-famed Red Line was, but are still massively subsidized and mostly filled with drooling retards. The moon shots did apparently accelerate the development of semiconductors. No they did not. I have written so many pieces trying to disabuse people of this notion about going to the moon that I cringe at the thought of writing another one. The Apollo spacecraft had as its MOST ADVANCED CHIP TECHNOLOGY a technology called DTL, standing for diode-transistor-logic. This is the technology which came after RTL (resistor-transistor-logic) and before TTL (transistor-transistor-logic). It is the technology of circa 1961-2, when the specs were frozen and the contracts let out. It did absolutely nothing to push chip technology in the slightest way. This bullshit by statists about how the moon landing helped technology has got to stop. (A side note should be made here about the fact that some technologies have a very high activation energy barrier...without a very intensive amount of capital, they can't happen. Indeed, aren't we nearly at that point with sub-0.13um technology? It is possible that further advances just won't be possible without direct or indirect government funding.) Utter bullshit. Intel is very far along on 90 nm, 300 mm technologies, none of it funded by Big Brother. You will see products based on this before summer. --Tim May
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 08:11 AM, Marshall Clow wrote: At 9:52 AM -0600 1/30/03, Harmon Seaver wrote: Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly if you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well. That may be true, but I have to travel in the world as it is, not the world as it could be. -- This is a terribly important point, and failure to understand this point is the source of more disagreements than I can count. What if everyone thought that way? (Fallacy, as my actions will NOT affect the choices of others, a situation most evident in the standard Does it make sense to vote in elections? debate.) If we all started driving electric vehicles, think of how we could change the world! (Fallacy, as my choice to drive or not drive an electric vehicle will not affect the choices of others, at least not to anything more significant than fifth or sixth order.) You didn't factor in the benefit of saving the planet. (Fallacy. Saving the planet depends on a lot of things. Spending more for a less safe vehicle so as to affect the planet by one part in 10 to the 9 is not wise. Plus, the alternative fuels are not all they are cracked up to be.) As Marshall said, things are what they are. Each actor should act as he sees fit. For most of us, this means maximizing returns (maximum expected utility, MEU) based on local, immediate choices. This is often called the Prisoner's Dilemma. Or greed. Or self-interest. But what if everyone thought that way? Then I'd be a damned fool to think otherwise, wouldn't I? (Catch-22, paraphrased) --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots tyrants. --Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: I have had one case where taking the train was a big win over driving. I was consulting in San Francisco, about 60 miles from my home. I found that if I rode the train, I could work as I rode, and turn my travel time into billable hours. I also avoided the ruinous parking charges in downtown. Given those facts, I would have taken the train even if the ticket price hadn't been subsidized. My favorite has always been the overnight train from Boston to Washington (a trip I used to take fairly often). To make a morning meeting the choices were (are): - leave home around 6 for an 8pm or so flight, get in late, deal with airport transportation, stay at a hotel - leave home REALLY early in the morning to catch the first flight out - go into Boston, have a nice dinner, take the train leaving around 10pm, pay for a sleeper, wake up and watch the sunrise over Chesapeak Bay, have breakfast brought to my compartment, get into Union Station around 7am, hop the subway (note: you can also get off at BWI airport, if you have business north of DC) It's a great time-saver, and the cost ends up being about the same as a plane, plus hotel, plus cabs or a rent-a-car.
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
At 11:12 AM -0500 1/30/03, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? Recently I went from DC to SF. It took about five hours of flight time each way on JetBlue, which sells round-trip direct tickets for $200. It was very pleasant. I could take the train next time. Amtrak assures me that I could leave on Jan 30 and arrive on Feb 2 -- three full days of traveling, with switching trains in New York and Chicago. Oh, I couldn't actually find a train to SF (Amtrak says no service), so that'll only get me as far as LA. And it's more expensive. And don't forget 3 days of train food, and 2 nights of sleeping on a train. FWIW, Amtrak goes to Oakland, and there's a shuttle bus that takes you from the train station to the BART station, which can get you to downtown SF ;-) -- -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey! Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: [snip] Exactly. Trains are great. I currently live 80 miles from both Milwaukee and Madison. I recently had to travel from San Diego to San Francisco. I investigated three options (all times are door to door) 1) Flying - about 4 hours - $95 round trip. 2) Driving - about 8 hours - $60 round trip 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? Comfort, for one. Vastly greater comfort, no hassles with airport thugs, etc. Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly if you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
At 9:52 AM -0600 1/30/03, Harmon Seaver wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: [snip] Exactly. Trains are great. I currently live 80 miles from both Milwaukee and Madison. I recently had to travel from San Diego to San Francisco. I investigated three options (all times are door to door) 1) Flying - about 4 hours - $95 round trip. 2) Driving - about 8 hours - $60 round trip 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? Comfort, for one. Vastly greater comfort, no hassles with airport thugs, etc. The car is better than the train for that. There were three of us in the car, and we could stop and eat whenever we wanted - with a much bigger choice of food than the train offers. (Mmm, Harris Ranch) [ And since there were three of us, my share of the travel expenses was $20! ] Look again at the times - the train is less than 1/2 the speed of driving. I've taken that train a couple times, as an adventure. These days, I have better things to do with my time. (Playing with my kids, for example) Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly if you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well. That may be true, but I have to travel in the world as it is, not the world as it could be. -- -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey! Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?
RE: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
Harmon Seaver[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: [snip] Exactly. Trains are great. I currently live 80 miles from both Milwaukee and Madison. I recently had to travel from San Diego to San Francisco. I investigated three options (all times are door to door) 1) Flying - about 4 hours - $95 round trip. 2) Driving - about 8 hours - $60 round trip 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? Comfort, for one. Vastly greater comfort, no hassles with airport thugs, etc. Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly if you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well. Harmon Seaver Factor in the subsidies? OK, lets start with the $20 odd billion in subsidies Amtrak has burned through since its inception. Back in '97 the average subsidy for a Chicago to Denver passenger was $650. Counting in subsidies, that $130 round trip is probably over to $300, most of it from taxpayers. It would be cheaper to close down the whole system, and give passengers free (to them) bus or air tickets. Cites: http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-amtroute.htm Peter Trei
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 08:11:36AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly if you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well. That may be true, but I have to travel in the world as it is, not the world as it could be. -- Well, yes, but the thread is primarily about the destructive effects of subsidy. Sort of fantasizing what it would be in a libertarian dream world, I guess. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Factor in the subsidies? OK, lets start with the $20 odd billion in subsidies Amtrak has burned through since its inception. Back in '97 the average subsidy for a Chicago to Denver passenger was $650. Uh huh, and what about the 20 billion the airlines got in just the last year or two? And all the billions for airports for the 70 or so years before that? Counting in subsidies, that $130 round trip is probably over to $300, most of it from taxpayers. It would be cheaper to close down the whole system, and give passengers free (to them) bus or air tickets. Cites: http://www.cato.org/dailys/5-22-97.html http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-amtroute.htm Peter Trei Yes, and we ought to get back all the billions spent on highways for the truckers as well. Also on the military to keep oil cheap. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:12:17AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:32:10AM -0800, Marshall Clow wrote: 3) Train - about 17 hours - $130 round trip. Help me out here - why would I take the train? Recently I went from DC to SF. It took about five hours of flight time each way on JetBlue, which sells round-trip direct tickets for $200. It was very pleasant. Okay, but the thread was, I believe, about the destructive effects of subsidy. So lets yank back that 20 billion just given to the airlines. How would your flight have gone then? Would there even be one? Yes, we have to live in the world as it is, but it's a bit absurd to put down Amtrack when the airlines have become by far the most publically funded method of travel. Amtrack, publically funded? What a joke! -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
At 11:30 AM 01/30/2003 -0500, Jamie Lawrence wrote: I lived in San Francisco for 10 years. One job I had required me to have a car so I could get to a data center in San Jose in cases of emergency (never happened), so I bought a cheap beater. Spent $1000 on the car, $400 a year on insurance, and about $3000/yr on parking and parking tickets. It was eventually stolen, and I was incredibly happy when it was. BART is actually not bad - one can work on the ride. MUNI is miserable, but it usually works, at least. Depending on where you live in the city, cabs can take care of the emergency situations, and renting a car can take care of events that you've got more advance notice about. On the other hand, San Francisco (like New York) has a special program to encourage car ownership and parking consumption, called taxi medallions, which are designed to make sure there are never as many cabs on the street as the market will bear. Caltrain was a nice way to commute for the ~5 years I was going in that direction. As Bill Frantz said, you can work on the train, which does make up for the hurry-up-and-wait. Amtrak in most of the US sucks, but from NYC-NewJersey-Washington, it works pretty well - I found it was typically about 15 minutes slower than flying, if I got one of the express trains.
Re: Who feigned Roger Rabbit?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tim May wrote: This is a terribly important point, and failure to understand this point is the source of more disagreements than I can count. What if everyone thought that way? (Fallacy, as my actions will NOT affect the choices of others, a situation most evident in the standard Does it make sense to vote in elections? debate.) False, your actions do effect others. If you didn't believe that why write your manifesto? Why even get up in the morning? If we all started driving electric vehicles, think of how we could change the world! (Fallacy, as my choice to drive or not drive an electric vehicle will not affect the choices of others, at least not to anything more significant than fifth or sixth order.) Actually it will, Schilling Point, Economy of Scale, Network Effects, etc. You didn't factor in the benefit of saving the planet. (Fallacy. Saving the planet depends on a lot of things. Spending more for a less safe vehicle so as to affect the planet by one part in 10 to the 9 is not wise. Plus, the alternative fuels are not all they are cracked up to be.) Every little bit helps. The fallacy in your view is that it assumes covertly that unless you can make a big change anything else is not worth anything. You want it all or none. As Marshall said, things are what they are. Each actor should act as he sees fit. For most of us, this means maximizing returns (maximum expected utility, MEU) based on local, immediate choices. The world is as we make it. Our decisions each and every day change the way it is. If somebody simply decides not to pull a trigger the world changes. This is often called the Prisoner's Dilemma. Or greed. Or self-interest. False Comparison. But what if everyone thought that way? Then people wouldn't be people. But the hallmark of people is that they don't see the world the same way, even when viewing the -exact same facts-. You fail to factor in opinion, which is based =precisely- on the way -we want the world to be ideally-. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
