On 1/19/2025 9:29 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/18/2025 4:49 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Mallard has gone faster in 1938 hit 126 and held 126mph on a down hill
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:24:12 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:
On 2025-01-18, Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley- extension- >>>>>>>>>> funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of operating >>>>>>>>>> expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than most
passenger
rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680 operating >>>>>>>>> expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most government >>>>>>>> accounting (which practices would land me in prison post haste). >>>>>>>>
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its original >>>>>>>> Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were supposed >>>>>>>> to go
away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for politicians >>>>>>>> and the
civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years ago. >>>>>>> People
blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere you >>>>>>>> go and
depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax doesn't go to >>>>>>>> roads:
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states- >>>>>>>> divert-
away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road maintenance >>>>>>>> expense,
as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-
user-fees-
pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the insider >>>>>>>> beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not
subsidize
rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses skips
over that
point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance passenger
rail
even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day, but two or >>>>>> three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge is easy to >>>>>> choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I do use rail for long distance travel. eg:CA to WA state on the Coast >>>>> Starlight.
If we could manage to attain the 60mph through town and at least 90
mph
otherwise that was common when I visited GB in the 70's it would go
a long
way to getting more people on board.
In the days of steam I understand 100mph was not uncommon on some
lines.
Sigh.
Frustrated rail fan
pH in Aptos
There's not enough people like you.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 From the Steam Age:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xa6Cr39LZU
section, though certainly in uk pace has slowed somewhat with the
Intercity
trains holding 100mph + with top speeds of 125mph limited by the
track/signalling systems and so on, with the intercity 125 from the
70’s ie
speeds haven’t changed in 50 something years, some of the trains units
even
then could go faster if the line was upgraded.
This said even at 100mph or so average that’s decently quick.
As I understand it (I'm no expert) standard track gauges & train height, aerodynamics, normal track anomalies etc make stability, safety etc
difficult in the 100+ area.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading is using
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
LOL
The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is #FAKE_NEWS.
Possibly even more powerful than the other 4, but he only >>>>>>>> targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily greedy (Like Musk and the >>>>>>>> Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know about na man who started >>>>>>> with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you jealous since your morals, >>>>>>> long ago were cast aside?
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of mind.
Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune which was made with
slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with insider trading and other >>>>>> crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid fsks". Morals? LOL. >>>>>> Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it bit them in the ass. >>>>>> So .... who?
[]'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they welcome the fifth >>>>>> horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs (ask someone with
mental issues that believes in the bibel. The prophecies are all
there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is. I should have known. >>>>
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the stock market. Buy
cheap and sell high.
To produce "facts" notably on social media but also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make money with that is >>>> even more perverse. It's a felony.
All judges have their price though. As Musk is fond of
reminding the people he conned.
My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between Elon Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number of drilling crew >members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the door to tell him.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley- extension- >>>>>>> funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of operating
expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than most passenger >>>>>>> rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680 operating
expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most government
accounting (which practices would land me in prison post haste).
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its original
Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were supposed to go >>>>> away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for politicians and the >>>>> civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years ago. People >>>> blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere you go and >>>>> depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax doesn't go to roads: >>>>>
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert- >>>>> away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road maintenance expense, >>>>> as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees- >>>>> pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the insider
beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not subsidize >>>> rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses skips over that >>>> point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance passenger rail
even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day, but two or
three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge is easy to
choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are "affordable", 4
hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic is capable of
gaining a significant market share of journeys between "cities with an
airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city centers pretty much
kills the airline market (except feeder services) between those cities:
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich completely killed
the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline market Munich -
Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4 hours journey time
between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and Ruhr - Munich) by
investing in 180 mph lines.
I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is about how long
I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for longer, but
only because auto travel wasn't an option.
So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720 miles if it
was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to any of our out
of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops along the way that
would make it take longer, too.
Am 20.01.2025 um 12:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley- extension- >>>>>>>> funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of operating
expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than most passenger >>>>>>>> rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680 operating
expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most government
accounting (which practices would land me in prison post haste).
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its original
Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were supposed to go >>>>>> away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for politicians and the >>>>>> civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years ago. People >>>>> blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere you go and >>>>>> depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax doesn't go to roads: >>>>>>
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert- >>>>>> away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road maintenance expense, >>>>>> as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees- >>>>>> pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the insider
beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not subsidize >>>>> rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses skips over that >>>>> point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance passenger rail >>>> even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day, but two or
three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge is easy to
choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are "affordable", 4
hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic is capable of
gaining a significant market share of journeys between "cities with an
airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city centers pretty much
kills the airline market (except feeder services) between those cities:
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich completely killed
the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline market Munich - >>> Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4 hours journey time
between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and Ruhr - Munich) by >>> investing in 180 mph lines.
I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is about how long
I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for longer, but
only because auto travel wasn't an option.
So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720 miles if it
was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to any of our out
of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops along the way that
would make it take longer, too.
Correct. Hamburg - Munich is 500 miles and not technically but
financially out of reach of those magic 4 hours (currently it's 5:30
with two major investments planned to bring it to 4:30 by 2070).
In Germany (like the east-coast corridor), we aim for one major stop per
hour to serve intermediate locations - which is why speeds above 160 mph
are rarely value-for-money; in France (larger and less dense) they go 3
or 4 hours non-stop at 200 mph to compete point-to-point with the plane.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:20:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 20.01.2025 um 12:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley- extension- >>>>>>>>> funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of operating >>>>>>>>> expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than most passenger >>>>>>>>> rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680 operating >>>>>>>> expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most government
accounting (which practices would land me in prison post haste). >>>>>>>
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its original
Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were supposed to go >>>>>>> away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for politicians and the >>>>>>> civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years ago. People >>>>>> blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere you go and >>>>>>> depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax doesn't go to roads: >>>>>>>
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-states-divert- >>>>>>> away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road maintenance expense,
as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees- >>>>>>> pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the insider
beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not subsidize >>>>>> rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses skips over that >>>>>> point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance passenger rail >>>>> even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day, but two or
three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge is easy to
choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are "affordable", 4
hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic is capable of >>>> gaining a significant market share of journeys between "cities with an >>>> airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city centers pretty much
kills the airline market (except feeder services) between those cities: >>>>
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich completely killed >>>> the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline market Munich - >>>> Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4 hours journey time >>>> between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and Ruhr - Munich) by >>>> investing in 180 mph lines.
I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is about how long
I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for longer, but
only because auto travel wasn't an option.
So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720 miles if it
was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to any of our out
of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops along the way that
would make it take longer, too.
Correct. Hamburg - Munich is 500 miles and not technically but
financially out of reach of those magic 4 hours (currently it's 5:30
with two major investments planned to bring it to 4:30 by 2070).
In Germany (like the east-coast corridor), we aim for one major stop per
hour to serve intermediate locations - which is why speeds above 160 mph
are rarely value-for-money; in France (larger and less dense) they go 3
or 4 hours non-stop at 200 mph to compete point-to-point with the plane.
Seem to me that they should have a little drone car running out in
front of the train looking for a cow on the track or a hickup in the
steel.
Am 20.01.2025 um 12:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-
valley- extension-
funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of
operating
expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more than
most passenger
rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680
operating
expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most
government
accounting (which practices would land me in prison
post haste).
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its
original
Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths were
supposed to go
away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for
politicians and the
civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few
years ago. People
blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different
everywhere you go and
depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax
doesn't go to roads:
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-
money-states-divert-
away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road
maintenance expense,
as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-
taxes-and-user-fees-
pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits
the insider
beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to
subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we
should not subsidize
rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all expenses
skips over that
point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty
obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance
passenger rail
even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be
interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a day,
but two or
three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor charge
is easy to
choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are
"affordable", 4
hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic
is capable of
gaining a significant market share of journeys between
"cities with an
airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city centers
pretty much
kills the airline market (except feeder services) between
those cities:
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich
completely killed
the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline
market Munich -
Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4
hours journey time
between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and
Ruhr - Munich) by
investing in 180 mph lines.
I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is
about how long
I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for
longer, but
only because auto travel wasn't an option.
So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720
miles if it
was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to
any of our out
of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops along
the way that
would make it take longer, too.
Correct. Hamburg - Munich is 500 miles and not technically
but financially out of reach of those magic 4 hours
(currently it's 5:30 with two major investments planned to
bring it to 4:30 by 2070).
In Germany (like the east-coast corridor), we aim for one
major stop per hour to serve intermediate locations - which
is why speeds above 160 mph are rarely value-for-money; in
France (larger and less dense) they go 3 or 4 hours non-stop
at 200 mph to compete point-to-point with the plane.
Am 20.01.2025 um 13:56 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:20:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 20.01.2025 um 12:57 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:56:01 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-
valley- extension-
funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22%
of operating
expenses (that's negative ROI on capital), more
than most passenger
rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or
I-680 operating
expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most
government
accounting (which practices would land me in prison
post haste).
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off
its original
Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths
were supposed to go
away. Never happened because it's a slush fund for
politicians and the
civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few
years ago. People
blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different
everywhere you go and
depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax
doesn't go to roads:
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-
money-states-divert-
away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road
maintenance expense,
as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-
taxes-and-user-fees-
pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong,
depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits
the insider
beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to
subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we
should not subsidize
rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all
expenses skips over that
point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty
obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long
distance passenger rail
even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be
interest in
intercity rail for trips that take less than half a
day, but two or
three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor
charge is easy to
choose even if the train ride has more legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are
"affordable", 4
hours of journey time are the maximum where rail
traffic is capable of
gaining a significant market share of journeys between
"cities with an
airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city
centers pretty much
kills the airline market (except feeder services)
between those cities:
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich
completely killed
the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the
airline market Munich -
Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4
hours journey time
between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and
Ruhr - Munich) by
investing in 180 mph lines.
I never thought of it that way, but yes, four hours is
about how long
I'd care to be locked up. I have taken air flights for
longer, but
only because auto travel wasn't an option.
So lets see, 180MPH for four hours will get me about 720
miles if it
was a direct route. That wouldn't get my wife and me to
any of our out
of state relatives. I suspect that there'd be stops
along the way that
would make it take longer, too.
Correct. Hamburg - Munich is 500 miles and not
technically but
financially out of reach of those magic 4 hours
(currently it's 5:30
with two major investments planned to bring it to 4:30 by
2070).
In Germany (like the east-coast corridor), we aim for one
major stop per
hour to serve intermediate locations - which is why
speeds above 160 mph
are rarely value-for-money; in France (larger and less
dense) they go 3
or 4 hours non-stop at 200 mph to compete point-to-point
with the plane.
Seem to me that they should have a little drone car
running out in
front of the train looking for a cow on the track or a
hickup in the
steel.
Generally, high-speed tracks are fenced in to prevent damage
with cattle and have measuring equipment check the track
quality regularly.
The collision in Germany with a sheep at 210 km/h (130 mph)
inside a tunnel
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Eisenbahnunfall_im_Landr%C3%BCckentunnel>
was a lot less severe than the collision with a cow at 140
km/h (85 mph) in Scotland in a cutting <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polmont_rail_accident>
On Mon Jan 20 07:27:37 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:52:51 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
LOL
The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is #FAKE_NEWS.
Possibly even more powerful than the other 4, but he only
targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily greedy (Like Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know about na man who started
with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you jealous since your morals,
long ago were cast aside?
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of mind.
Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune which was made with >> >>>>>> slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with insider trading and other >> >>>>>> crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid fsks". Morals? LOL. >> >>>>>> Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it bit them in the ass.
So .... who?
[]'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they welcome the fifth >> >>>>>> horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs (ask someone with
mental issues that believes in the bibel. The prophecies are all
there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is. I should have known.
Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading is using
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the stock market. Buy
cheap and sell high.
To produce "facts" notably on social media but also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make money with that is >> >>>> even more perverse. It's a felony.
All judges have their price though. As Musk is fond of
reminding the people he conned.
My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between Elon Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number of drilling crew
members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the door to tell him.
Everyone who has a good job in a company with public stock has insider
information. I bought a bunch of stock in the company I worked for and
ths, had inside information. I still have the stock and the
connections, my son works there now at a higher level than I was at. I
talked to him just yesterday and we talked about problems with the
cold weather. He's a bit concerned, but neither one of us is looking
to sell.
Again, that is not insider trading. That is investing in a company you do or did work for. Would you call my company matching my stock options insider trading? That is nothing more than investing since your company could go bust and your investmentswould be worth nothing.
If I became aware of something that was going to change the value of
the stock and acted on it, it would be insider trading.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 13:47:39 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
<snip>
If I became aware of something that was going to change the value of
the stock and acted on it, it would be insider trading.
Exactly. Or if you had hundreds of thousands of followers and
announced that your factory was closing down (or predicted record
sales) when nothing was happening, the same.
"Men of honor" don't do insider trading.
Disonerable men make billions fooling their gullible followers
then buy the judges.
[]'s
On 1/20/2025 3:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
+1
"Men of honor" don't do insider trading.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/
bitstreams/6be96220-009b-47c7-abdb-34f645713a34/content
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/insider-trading-and-
congress-how- lawmakers-get-rich-from-stock-market.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/
politics/congress- stock-trading-investigation.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stocks-stock-act-
violations- lawmakers-finances-disclosure-2022-12?op=1
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/it-illegal-
lawmakers-trade- stocks-insider-info-they-learn-job-n1165156
Yeah, but: If we didn't read it on eX-Twitter or Fox, it's
fake news, right? ;-)
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:00:29 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 18:52:51 2025 John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading is using
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
LOL
The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is #FAKE_NEWS.
Possibly even more powerful than the other 4, but he only >>>>>>>>>> targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily greedy (Like Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know about na man who started >>>>>>>>> with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you jealous since your morals,
long ago were cast aside?
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of mind.
Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune which was made with >>>>>>>> slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with insider trading and other >>>>>>>> crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid fsks". Morals? LOL. >>>>>>>> Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it bit them in the ass. >>>>>>>> So .... who?
[]'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they welcome the fifth >>>>>>>> horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs (ask someone with >>>>>>>> mental issues that believes in the bibel. The prophecies are all >>>>>>>> there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is. I should have known. >>>>>>
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the stock market. Buy >>>>>> cheap and sell high.
To produce "facts" notably on social media but also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make money with that is >>>>>> even more perverse. It's a felony.
All judges have their price though. As Musk is fond of
reminding the people he conned.
My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between Elon Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number of drilling crew
members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the door to tell him.
John, that isn't insider trading. Nancy Pelosi was pushing LAWS through Congress that allowed wild growth in specific companies that she bought into early.
Really? Tell us more... with perhaps a tiny bit of proof that you know
what you are talking about?
On Mon Jan 20 11:56:01 2025 Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 18.01.2025 um 10:19 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:27:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 5:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:
This line?
https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/02/bart-silicon-valley-
extension- funding/
Seems to be 'in progress' as of last summer.
For the whole system, fares cover a whopping 22% of
operating expenses (that's negative ROI on capital),
more than most passenger rail systems.
Hmm. I wonder what percentage of, say, I-880 or I-680
operating expenses are paid for by fares. Anybody got a
figure?
Impossible to know. Too convoluted, just like most
government accounting (which practices would land me in
prison post haste).
Regarding tolls, I remember when Illinois paid off its
original Interstate bonds, at which point the toll booths
were supposed to go away. Never happened because it's a
slush fund for politicians and the civil service.
Same thing happened with the Ohio Turnpike just a few years
ago. People blamed the Republican-controlled legislature.
But if you meant the road tax, that's different everywhere
you go and depending on where you are 2% to 20% of road tax
doesn't go to roads:
https://reason.org/policy-brief/how-much-gas-tax-money-
states-divert- away-from-roads/
And, in the other view, road taxes don't cover road
maintenance expense, as far as we know:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gasoline-taxes-and-
user-fees- pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
So every argument can be both right and wrong, depending.
Short answer: it's a mess and a muddle. Which suits the
insider beneficiaries just fine.
My overall point is, we've obviously decided to subsidize road
transportation. It's not immediately obvious why we should not
subsidize rail transportation. Asking fares to cover all
expenses skips over that point.
We do subsidize passenger rail, and it seems pretty obvious that
people in the USA have not choosen to use long distance
passenger rail even when it is subsidized. There does seem to be
interest in intercity rail for trips that take less than half a
day, but two or three days vs 4 or 5 hours on plane for a lessor
charge is easy to choose even if the train ride has more
legroom.
Sure. Given that air traffic exists and tickets are "affordable",
4 hours of journey time are the maximum where rail traffic is
capable of gaining a significant market share of journeys between
"cities with an airport"; 3 hours of journey time between 2 city
centers pretty much kills the airline market (except feeder
services) between those cities:
The high-speed rail line Berlin - Nuremberg - Munich completely
killed the air market Nuremberg - Berlin and halved the airline
market Munich - Berlin when it opened in 2017.
Germany is just about small enough to have reached 4 hours journey
time between most major cities (except Hamburg - Munich and Ruhr -
Munich) by investing in 180 mph lines.
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the
air market completely.
On 1/20/2025 6:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:00:29 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 18:52:51 2025 John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
    LOL
    The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is #FAKE_NEWS. >>>>>>>>>>>     Possibly even more powerful than the other 4, but he only >>>>>>>>>>> targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily greedy (Like >>>>>>>>>>> Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know about na man who >>>>>>>>>> started
with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull men on this >>>>>>>>>> planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you jealous since your >>>>>>>>>> morals,
long ago were cast aside?
    Who on Earth are you talking about?
    Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of mind.
    Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune which was made with
slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with insider trading and >>>>>>>>> other
crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid fsks". Morals? >>>>>>>>> LOL.
Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it bit them in >>>>>>>>> the ass.
    So .... who?
    []'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they welcome the >>>>>>>>> fifth
horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs (ask someone with >>>>>>>>> mental issues that believes in the bibel. The prophecies are all >>>>>>>>> there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is. I should have >>>>>>>> known.
    Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading is using >>>>>>> knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that the general >>>>>>> public does not have access to, to manipulate the stock market. Buy >>>>>>> cheap and sell high.
    To produce "facts" notably on social media but also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make money with
that is
even more perverse. It's a felony.
    All judges have their price though. As Musk is fond of
reminding the people he conned.
    My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between Elon Musk and
insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number of drilling crew >>>> members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the door to tell him.
John, that isn't insider trading. Nancy Pelosi was pushing LAWS
through Congress that allowed wild growth in specific companies that
she bought into early.
Really? Tell us more... with perhaps a tiny bit of proof that you know
what you are talking about?
The most egregious blatant case was the Pelosi Visa options trade. It
was well reported:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/nancy-pelosi-s- husband-dumped-thousands-of-visa-shares-worth-over-500k-just-2-months- before-the-doj-s-antitrust-lawsuit-and-it-s-reigniting-insider-trading- concerns/ar-AA1rDBsq
Am 20.01.2025 um 18:57 schrieb cyclintom:
On Mon Jan 20 11:34:29 2025 Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
    LOL
    The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is
#FAKE_NEWS.
    Possibly even more powerful than the other 4,
but he only
targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily greedy
(Like Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know about
na man who started
with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull
men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you jealous
since your morals,
long ago were cast aside?
    Who on Earth are you talking about?
    Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of mind.
    Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune which
was made with
slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with insider
trading and other
crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid
fsks". Morals? LOL.
Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it bit
them in the ass.
    So .... who?
    []'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they
welcome the fifth
horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs (ask
someone with
mental issues that believes in the bibel. The
prophecies are all
there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is. I
should have known.
    Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading is
using
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that
the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the
stock market. Buy
cheap and sell high.
    To produce "facts" notably on social media but also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make
money with that is
even more perverse. It's a felony.
    All judges have their price though. As Musk is fond of
reminding the people he conned.
    My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between Elon
Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a sufficient
reason to
refrain from insider trading.
When you own a company, by definition you cannot perform
"insider trading".
Every "insider trading" involves you to partly own a company
at some point in time because insider trading is about
buying and selling shares.
When you sell shares in a company, by definition you do not
(completely) own it.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the
air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/20/2025 6:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:00:29 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 18:52:51 2025 John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
    LOL
    The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is
#FAKE_NEWS.
    Possibly even more powerful than the other
4, but he only
targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily
greedy (Like Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know
about na man who started
with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull
men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you
jealous since your morals,
long ago were cast aside?
    Who on Earth are you talking about?
    Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of
mind.
    Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune
which was made with
slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with
insider trading and other
crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid
fsks". Morals? LOL.
Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it
bit them in the ass.
    So .... who?
    []'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they
welcome the fifth
horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs
(ask someone with
mental issues that believes in the bibel. The
prophecies are all
there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is.
I should have known.
    Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading
is using
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that
the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the
stock market. Buy
cheap and sell high.
    To produce "facts" notably on social media but
also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make
money with that is
even more perverse. It's a felony.
    All judges have their price though. As Musk is
fond of
reminding the people he conned.
    My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between
Elon Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a
sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back
when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number
of drilling crew
members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we
brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our
employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I
knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon
as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the
door to tell him.
John, that isn't insider trading. Nancy Pelosi was
pushing LAWS through Congress that allowed wild growth
in specific companies that she bought into early.
Really? Tell us more... with perhaps a tiny bit of proof
that you know
what you are talking about?
The most egregious blatant case was the Pelosi Visa
options trade. It was well reported:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/nancy-
pelosi-s- husband-dumped-thousands-of-visa-shares-worth-
over-500k-just-2-months- before-the-doj-s-antitrust-
lawsuit-and-it-s-reigniting-insider-trading- concerns/ar-
AA1rDBsq
Horseshit.
Selling stock two months before the DOJ opens an
investigation hardly rises to the level of "egregious and
blatent".
The most egregious and blatant cases were Burr and Loeffler
who made millions in trading after closed-sessions on the
pandemic.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-kelly-loeffler-dumped- millions-in-stock-after-coronavirus-briefing/
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/488576-tucker-carlson- calls-on-burr-to-resign-amid-reports-of-stock-selloff-due-to/
Feinstein was caught up in the scandal too.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/dianne-feinstein- husband-stock-trades-258693
Take off your partisan blinders, andrew.
On 1/21/2025 8:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/20/2025 6:41 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 18:00:29 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 18:52:51 2025 John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:34:29 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 17.01.2025 um 23:53 schrieb cyclintom:
On Fri Jan 17 18:35:54 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:13:30 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sun Jan 12 10:23:48 2025 Shadow wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 22:07:38 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jan 9 16:04:05 2025 Shadow wrote:
LOL
The fifth horseman of the apocalypse is
#FAKE_NEWS.
Possibly even more powerful than the other
4, but he only
targets the weak-of-mind and the unhealthily
greedy (Like Musk and the
Meta guy), so we're safe.
Why don't you tell us what you actually know
about na man who started
with nothing and is now one of the most powerfull
men on this planet without
ever losing nhis morals? Does that make you
jealous since your morals,
long ago were cast aside?
Who on Earth are you talking about?
Jeeesus? He's only "powerful" to the weak of
mind.
Not Musk** (inherited his family's fortune
which was made with
slave labour in SA, then multiplied it with
insider trading and other
crimes), or Zukerberg "they trust me, the stupid
fsks". Morals? LOL.
Neither would know what "morals" meant even if it
bit them in the ass.
So .... who?
[]'s
** PS Zukerberg and Musk have announced that they
welcome the fifth
horseman, as long as they help the anti-christs
(ask someone with
mental issues that believes in the bibel. The
prophecies are all
there....)
So, you don't even know what "insider trading" is.
I should have known.
Nice, saves you looking it up. Insider trading
is using
knowledge you have(due to contacts, bribes etc) that
the general
public does not have access to, to manipulate the
stock market. Buy
cheap and sell high.
To produce "facts" notably on social media but
also in
newspapers etc that make shares crash/soar and make
money with that is
even more perverse. It's a felony.
All judges have their price though. As Musk is
fond of
reminding the people he conned.
My Google is broken
Too bad you don't know any real connection between
Elon Musk and insider trading.
Having "no need in insider trading" is not a
sufficient reason to
refrain from insider trading.
But "insider" trading exists all over the world. Back
when I was
working in the oil field you can't imagine the number
of drilling crew
members who absolutely had to contact their wife if we
brought in a
good fat exploration well.
We got a very nice 3 year contract because one of our
employees heard
an oil company manager mention, in a bar, "I wish I
knew a good
company to do that project". We made sure that as soon
as his office
opened the next morning somebody was standing at the
door to tell him.
John, that isn't insider trading. Nancy Pelosi was
pushing LAWS through Congress that allowed wild growth
in specific companies that she bought into early.
Really? Tell us more... with perhaps a tiny bit of proof
that you know
what you are talking about?
The most egregious blatant case was the Pelosi Visa
options trade. It was well reported:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/nancy-
pelosi-s- husband-dumped-thousands-of-visa-shares-worth-
over-500k-just-2-months- before-the-doj-s-antitrust-
lawsuit-and-it-s-reigniting-insider-trading- concerns/ar-
AA1rDBsq
Horseshit.
Selling stock two months before the DOJ opens an
investigation hardly rises to the level of "egregious and
blatent".
The most egregious and blatant cases were Burr and Loeffler
who made millions in trading after closed-sessions on the
pandemic.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-kelly-loeffler-dumped-
millions-in-stock-after-coronavirus-briefing/
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/488576-tucker-carlson-
calls-on-burr-to-resign-amid-reports-of-stock-selloff-due-to/
Feinstein was caught up in the scandal too.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/dianne-feinstein-
husband-stock-trades-258693
Take off your partisan blinders, andrew.
You are correct.
In my other reply, I noted this is pervasive across parties
and other divisions. Ranking 'worst' is maybe not helpful;
Congress are mostly self dealing cheats and liars who write
laws for other people but not themselves.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop >>>travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were >cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
--And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two >>wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland >>insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 20:20:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
And some "survived" the crash, and were arrested in Europe a
while later.
PS I don't think "Homeland Security" even existed before
Bush's coup. Were people searched when boarding planes before that? I
never was. Only after I landed, by customs. Even that was unusual.
[]'s
And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well: >https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
You are correct.
In my other reply, I noted this is pervasive across parties
and other divisions. Ranking 'worst' is maybe not helpful;
Congress are mostly self dealing cheats and liars who write
laws for other people but not themselves.
Congressional term limits.... we need 'em.. and maybe some way to
control lobbyists other than to shoot them.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 20:20:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
And some "survived" the crash, and were arrested in Europe a
while later.
PS I don't think "Homeland Security" even existed before
Bush's coup. Were people searched when boarding planes before that? I
never was. Only after I landed, by customs. Even that was unusual.
[]'s
And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 8:20 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on
commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour
more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains
simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US.
Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that
work on high-speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total
travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a
"2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase
1 would kill the
air market completely.
    I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11"Â catastrophe here in the U.S.The
bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
I think that's parallel to armies preparing to fight the
previous war, instead of the one coming up.
As I recall, those Saudis carried box cutters, which were
not then on the list of forbidden items. And until then,
hijackers typically wanted to divert the flight and land
elsewhere. Nobody anticipated someone wanting to turn a
plane into a Kamikaze suicide bomb.
I don't know that the outcome would have been any different
if they'd boarded in any other country. Well, except perhaps
Israel, which enthusiastically embraces racial profiling, at
least against Arabs. That's more difficult in our society.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:07:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would
not work.
[]'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well:
https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
That's about crossing borders to another country. I think
that's reasonable. Lots of criminals try to avoid prosecution by
crossing borders .... over 100 of Bolsonaro's followers fled to the
US. I have no idea how they got permits, most of them do not work, and
many of them are criminals linked to drugs trafficking, prostitution,
money laundering and contraband.
I mean being searched to travel in your own country.... that
should not happen in a "free" country.
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
Well, I used to have to travel by plane.
When traveling in Brazil I prefer 1) A train - if available.
There are very few passenger trains left
2) A bus. They are usually comfortable and have air
conditioning.
3) Ugggh a plane
That's if I have transport on the other end. If I don't, I
just drive there. Trouble is, I'm getting too old to drive. The most I
can stay awake is about 12 hours. Then I just curl up and go to sleep.
I've woken up in a stalled car twice in the last 10 years....
[]'s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:56:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
<snip>
You are correct.
In my other reply, I noted this is pervasive across parties
and other divisions. Ranking 'worst' is maybe not helpful;
Congress are mostly self dealing cheats and liars who write
laws for other people but not themselves.
Congressional term limits.... we need 'em.. and maybe some way to
control lobbyists other than to shoot them.
What's wrong with shooting them?
LOL
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 11:12 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:07:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not >>>>>> work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I >>>>>> do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-
speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling >>>>> time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop >>>>> travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would
kill the
air market completely.
    I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
    I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would >>>> not work.
    []'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well:
https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
    That's about crossing borders to another country. I think
that's reasonable. Lots of criminals try to avoid prosecution by
crossing borders .... over 100 of Bolsonaro's followers fled to the
US. I have no idea how they got permits, most of them do not work, and
many of them are criminals linked to drugs trafficking, prostitution,
money laundering and contraband.
    I mean being searched to travel in your own country.... that
should not happen in a "free" country.
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
    Well, I used to have to travel by plane.
    When traveling in Brazil I prefer 1) A train - if available.
There are very few passenger trains left
    2) A bus. They are usually comfortable and have air
conditioning.
    3) Ugggh a plane
    That's if I have transport on the other end. If I don't, I
just drive there. Trouble is, I'm getting too old to drive. The most I
can stay awake is about 12 hours. Then I just curl up and go to sleep.
I've woken up in a stalled car twice in the last 10 years....
    []'s
Domestic Amtrak security protocols: https://www.ncesc.com/does-amtrak-have-security-check/
On 1/21/2025 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 11:12 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:07:20 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on
commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour
more to Arizona
and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains
simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the
US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that
work on high- speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a
total travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a
"2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of
phase 1 would kill the
air market completely.
    I agree. You waste over an hour going to the
airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you
reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the
center of town. Two
wasted hours.
    I presume train passengers would not be subject to
"homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the
"air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to
Cuba" excuse would
not work.
    []'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well:
https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
    That's about crossing borders to another country. I
think
that's reasonable. Lots of criminals try to avoid
prosecution by
crossing borders .... over 100 of Bolsonaro's followers
fled to the
US. I have no idea how they got permits, most of them do
not work, and
many of them are criminals linked to drugs trafficking,
prostitution,
money laundering and contraband.
    I mean being searched to travel in your own
country.... that
should not happen in a "free" country.
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
    Well, I used to have to travel by plane.
    When traveling in Brazil I prefer 1) A train - if
available.
There are very few passenger trains left
    2) A bus. They are usually comfortable and have air
conditioning.
    3) Ugggh a plane
    That's if I have transport on the other end. If I
don't, I
just drive there. Trouble is, I'm getting too old to
drive. The most I
can stay awake is about 12 hours. Then I just curl up and
go to sleep.
I've woken up in a stalled car twice in the last 10
years....
    []'s
Domestic Amtrak security protocols:
https://www.ncesc.com/does-amtrak-have-security-check/
Well, that's not true at all. It may be a stated policy, but
it's not in use by any stretch of the imagination.
My father likes to visit my sister in Georgia twice a year
and is partial to the Amtrak from Boston to Savannah (he
transfers in either new york, philidehphia, and DC,
depending on the times he traveled)
I drive him to the Amtrak station in Boston. I help him
with his luggage to the platform, help him on the train, and
make sure the attendants understand his health issues. Upon
his return I reverse the process. We've been doing this for
three years now (2x a year), and not once has there ever
been a security checkpoint or any attempt by any TSA or
Amtrak employees to screen him or me, check his or my ID, or
any attempt to restrict my movement in the terminal or
getting on the train even without a ticket. My sister has a
similar experience in Savannah.
They may reserve the right to enforce some sort of security
protocol, but they haven't done it in either Boston or
Savannah in the past 3 years.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:17:53 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:56:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:30 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
<snip>
You are correct.
In my other reply, I noted this is pervasive across parties
and other divisions. Ranking 'worst' is maybe not helpful;
Congress are mostly self dealing cheats and liars who write
laws for other people but not themselves.
Congressional term limits.... we need 'em.. and maybe some way to >>>control lobbyists other than to shoot them.
What's wrong with shooting them?
LOL
[]'s
Noisy.. I hate noise.
On 1/21/2025 8:20 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not
work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I
do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop
travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
I think that's parallel to armies preparing to fight the previous war, >instead of the one coming up.
As I recall, those Saudis carried box cutters, which were not then on
the list of forbidden items. And until then, hijackers typically wanted
to divert the flight and land elsewhere. Nobody anticipated someone
wanting to turn a plane into a Kamikaze suicide bomb.
I don't know that the outcome would have been any different if they'd
boarded in any other country. Well, except perhaps Israel, which >enthusiastically embraces racial profiling, at least against Arabs.
That's more difficult in our society.
On 1/20/2025 5:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/20/2025 3:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:I did, Andrew! That was part of the joke.
On 1/20/2025 3:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
+1
"Men of honor" don't do insider trading.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/
bitstreams/6be96220-009b-47c7-abdb-34f645713a34/content
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/insider-trading-and- congress-how-
lawmakers-get-rich-from-stock-market.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/ politics/congress-
stock-trading-investigation.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stocks-stock-act-
violations- lawmakers-finances-disclosure-2022-12?op=1
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/it-illegal- lawmakers-
trade- stocks-insider-info-they-learn-job-n1165156
Yeah, but: If we didn't read it on eX-Twitter or Fox, it's fake news,
right? ;-)
Check those sources above once again.
On 1/21/2025 10:51 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 20:20:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:01:01 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:And some "survived" the crash, and were arrested in Europe a
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not >>>>>> work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I >>>>>> do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on high-speed >>>>> trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total travelling time >>>>> of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop >>>>> travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would kill the >>>>> air market completely.
I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
while later.
PS I don't think "Homeland Security" even existed before
Bush's coup. Were people searched when boarding planes before that? I
never was. Only after I landed, by customs. Even that was unusual.
[]'s
And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two
wasted hours.
I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland
insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would >>>> not work.
[]'s
There were no 'survivors'. Massoui was unable to make his arranged
meeting with the other plotters on 11 September as he was jailed in
Minnesota on immigration violations. Our 'famed' security apparatus
failed to connect him to the plot until after the fact.
https://www.famous-trials.com/moussaoui
Massoui's indictment: https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/indictment-zacarias-moussaoui
That's right about air travel. I usually just paid cash, no ID
including after once throwing a rod in my MGB. I bummed a ride to an
airport and flew back with my heavy toolbox, cash ticket, no ID.
On 1/21/2025 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 11:12 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:07:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Domestic Amtrak security protocols:
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not >>>>>>> work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I >>>>>>> do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on
high- speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total
travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop >>>>>> travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would
kill the
air market completely.
    I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two >>>>> wasted hours.
    I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland >>>>> insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market"
paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would >>>>> not work.
    []'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well:
https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
    That's about crossing borders to another country. I think
that's reasonable. Lots of criminals try to avoid prosecution by
crossing borders .... over 100 of Bolsonaro's followers fled to the
US. I have no idea how they got permits, most of them do not work, and
many of them are criminals linked to drugs trafficking, prostitution,
money laundering and contraband.
    I mean being searched to travel in your own country.... that
should not happen in a "free" country.
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
    Well, I used to have to travel by plane.
    When traveling in Brazil I prefer 1) A train - if available.
There are very few passenger trains left
    2) A bus. They are usually comfortable and have air
conditioning.
    3) Ugggh a plane
    That's if I have transport on the other end. If I don't, I
just drive there. Trouble is, I'm getting too old to drive. The most I
can stay awake is about 12 hours. Then I just curl up and go to sleep.
I've woken up in a stalled car twice in the last 10 years....
    []'s
https://www.ncesc.com/does-amtrak-have-security-check/
Well, that's not true at all. It may be a stated policy, but it's not
in use by any stretch of the imagination.
My father likes to visit my sister in Georgia twice a year and is
partial to the Amtrak from Boston to Savannah (he transfers in either
new york, philidehphia, and DC, depending on the times he traveled)
I drive him to the Amtrak station in Boston. I help him with his
luggage to the platform, help him on the train, and make sure the
attendants understand his health issues. Upon his return I reverse the process. We've been doing this for three years now (2x a year), and
not once has there ever been a security checkpoint or any attempt by
any TSA or Amtrak employees to screen him or me, check his or my ID,
or any attempt to restrict my movement in the terminal or getting on
the train even without a ticket. My sister has a similar experience in Savannah.
They may reserve the right to enforce some sort of security protocol,
but they haven't done it in either Boston or Savannah in the past 3
years.
Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:^ real-id
On 1/21/2025 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 11:12 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:07:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>Domestic Amtrak security protocols:
On 1/21/2025 7:01 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:48:33 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
San Francisco or Oakland to LA is only an hour on commercial
aircraft. The same to Las Vegas and only a half hour more to Arizona >>>>>>>> and only a half hour more than that to Denver. Trains simply do not >>>>>>>> work with the distances between major cities in the US. Too bad, I >>>>>>>> do like railroads.
On the contrary, exactly those are the distances that work on
high- speed
trains. "One hour on commercial aricraft" means a total
travelling time
of approx. three hours "city-center to city-center"; a "2:40 non-stop >>>>>>> travel time" by train as planned on completion of phase 1 would
kill the
air market completely.
    I agree. You waste over an hour going to the airport and
passing through the secret state police. And when you reach your
destination, it's usually at least 30 mins to the center of town. Two >>>>>> wasted hours.
    I presume train passengers would not be subject to "homeland >>>>>> insecurity" groping. Unless one of the CEO's from the "air market" >>>>>> paid someone to plant a bomb. The usual "take me to Cuba" excuse would >>>>>> not work.
    []'s
That's not right.
Here, the Stasi have infested the trains as well:
https://www.amtrak.com/tickets-id-safety-security
    That's about crossing borders to another country. I think
that's reasonable. Lots of criminals try to avoid prosecution by
crossing borders .... over 100 of Bolsonaro's followers fled to the
US. I have no idea how they got permits, most of them do not work, and >>>> many of them are criminals linked to drugs trafficking, prostitution,
money laundering and contraband.
    I mean being searched to travel in your own country.... that
should not happen in a "free" country.
I do not go to airports, and even to pick up or drop off
someone; I remain in my car in the parking area.
    Well, I used to have to travel by plane.
    When traveling in Brazil I prefer 1) A train - if available.
There are very few passenger trains left
    2) A bus. They are usually comfortable and have air
conditioning.
    3) Ugggh a plane
    That's if I have transport on the other end. If I don't, I
just drive there. Trouble is, I'm getting too old to drive. The most I >>>> can stay awake is about 12 hours. Then I just curl up and go to sleep. >>>> I've woken up in a stalled car twice in the last 10 years....
    []'s
https://www.ncesc.com/does-amtrak-have-security-check/
Well, that's not true at all. It may be a stated policy, but it's not
in use by any stretch of the imagination.
My father likes to visit my sister in Georgia twice a year and is
partial to the Amtrak from Boston to Savannah (he transfers in either
new york, philidehphia, and DC, depending on the times he traveled)
I drive him to the Amtrak station in Boston. I help him with his
luggage to the platform, help him on the train, and make sure the
attendants understand his health issues. Upon his return I reverse the
process. We've been doing this for three years now (2x a year), and
not once has there ever been a security checkpoint or any attempt by
any TSA or Amtrak employees to screen him or me, check his or my ID,
or any attempt to restrict my movement in the terminal or getting on
the train even without a ticket. My sister has a similar experience in
Savannah.
They may reserve the right to enforce some sort of security protocol,
but they haven't done it in either Boston or Savannah in the past 3
years.
That was my experience boarding in Albany as well. I had brought a
passport thinking they might go all read-id on me, but in the event they
didn't check a thing. Could change overnight, who knows.
On Mon Jan 20 13:47:39 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:
If I became aware of something that was going to change the value of
the stock and acted on it, it would be insider trading.
ONLY if it was information not available to the general public. Companies send prospectuses to investment firms that are by law supposed to be accurate. So if they recommend a stock it is worth its selling value.
IF they are lying on that prospectus and you discover that and take action by selling your stock without making that public, that is a sort of insider trading. But that is VERY serious shit and would put the directors behind bars.
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
IF they are lying on that prospectus and you discover that and take action
by selling your stock without making that public, that is a sort of insider >trading. But that is VERY serious shit and would put the directors behind >bars.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 20:20:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
Don't forget the "9/11" catastrophe here in the U.S.The bad guys were
cleared ,by security, to be passengers on the airplanes.
Security was never intended to stop bad guys. Its purpose is to
assure the passengers that Something Is Being Done.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:59:16 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,668 |