I moved nothing. Don't blame me if you don't understand the difference between infrastructure spending and subsidizes.

Amtrak can't survive outside of the Northeast corridor without regular cash infusions. Name an airline whose business model is dependent on recurring cash infusions from the Government.

Airlines don't get money deposited into their general fund from the United States Treasury. They take advantage of infrastructure spending, i.e., runways and air traffic control, but that's the same for every transportation system. I have little objection to the Feds paying for railways, roads, or runways. I have a serious objection to them giving Amtrak money to stay in business in markets where it could not survive on its own.

And that's a perfectly valid argument. The "We must do something!" crowd won't accept that, but it's valid nonetheless. It's like the argument that we need to equip every at-grade crossing in the country with barriers arms no matter how rural the road or infrequent the train traffic. It costs nearly a million dollars per crossing to do that and that money is wasted at certain at-grade crossings.

Newsflash: There's risk in life. Even without PTC traveling by train is still significantly safer than traveling by car. Where are the billions of dollars in unfunded Federal mandates to address the tens of thousands that die on the roadways every year?

You don't know that. If the train accelerated out of control because the engineer had a medical event then PTC/ATC would have prevented the crash. If it accelerated out of control because the throttle control system and/or brakes failed then PTC/ATC would not have mattered a whit.

Until we actually know both the how and the why all of these arguments are moot. That's my main point. This is a rush to judgment that's being driven by two factors: The 24 hour cable news cycle (how many different ways can we say, "We don't know anything new yet?") and political interests seeking to advance their cause while the public is paying attention to them.

A locked cockpit door could have prevented 9/11. Why the rush to create TSA? Because politicians must be seen to do something after a horrible tragedy. Saying, "C'est la vie" and treating us like grown ups would make too much fucking sense.

Planes are faster bro, even with loading/unloading time, which is why they can actually make money on their own while Amtrak can't survive without suckling milk from the Federal teat.

This headline is misleading. We don't yet know what caused the crash, so it's a leap to say PTC could have prevented it. We do know that the train was traveling at a high rate of speed but not the reasons why it was doing that. If it was a systems failure then it's entirely possible that PTC would have been irrelevant. This is just like the rush to judgment against the engineer, who everyone was ready to lynch after the accident; all we know for sure about him at this juncture is his cell phone was turned off and his drug/alcohol test came back clean.

Do some reading about PTC when you have a few minutes; like most Federal mandates it was:

1) Unfunded.
2) Ignored existing technology that could do the job nearly as well for a fraction of the cost.
3) Ineffective, in that there have only been two train accounts in the last 20 years (three if this one is confirmed) that it would have prevented.

Sports improve your mental and physical health while making you more attractive to potential mates. Sinking hours of your life into WoW does none of those things. It may be a decent stress outlet, in the short term, but so is Grand Theft Auto and that doesn't require a recurring monthly fee.....

They probably figure that the number of players that get pissed off at the cheating is greater than the number of those that cheat.

You're kidding right?

If you think I care that much about the "win" you've completely misunderstood me.

*shrug*, I re-read your post I initially replied to and parsed it more carefully; in fairness you didn't directly link supply and demand to price.

Why do some people smoke weed rather than building up themselves? Because it's easier and they're unmotivated. *shrug*

Did you miss the countless headlines about OPEC increasing production for the stated purpose of lowering prices?! Quite successfully I might add. Conservation is a red herring, incidentally, whatever improvements we make with technology are more than offset by third world development (*cough* China *cough*)

Uhh, have you been paying attention to oil prices and the reasons for the decline?

Commodities are not magically insulated from the law of supply and demand.

Lawsuit proceeds are not taxed by the Feds -- the theory being that it's not income, rather it represents an attempt at making you whole after a loss. It's the same theory as your insurance company paying the cash value of your car after you total it. That payment isn't taxed either.

Please give me a single citation of someone facing civil asset forfeiture for a positive drug test. Just one.

The authorities can't compel drug testing, outside of the few exceptions (suspected drugged driving, probation, or CDL holders), so how exactly are they going to use it as a basis for asset forfeiture?

You got caught twice? Dumbass. The extra $150 is a tax on stupid. I spent most of my 20s and early 30s smoking weed, all up and down in the East Coast, in States far stricter than NYS, and I got caught exactly zero times.

A little common sense goes a long way.