There is one issue with high-speed rail I seldom see mentioned in articles and discussions, and that is this: it is impossible to run both passenger and freight trains over the same rails at vastly different speeds. Because a curved section of track has to be banked for the fastest train that will run on it, or it will tend to fly off the rails to the outside of the curve. Freight trains are much heavier (and thus much slower) than passenger trains, so when they pass over track banked for a passenger train, they exert shearing force on the top of the rail in the direction of the inside of the curve. My father, a life-long railroad man, once showed me a dual-use curved section of track he'd laid only two years prior. The top outer edges of the rails had a such steep bevels worn on them that the track was going to have to be replaced soon, or freight trains would begin to slip off the rails (derail) toward the inside. Those passenger trains were running at between 70 and 80 miles an hour, while the freight trains were averaging 45 to 50 mph. Think how much worse the situation will be if we try and use the same tracks for 50 mph freight trains and 100-150 mph passenger service?! The only sane (from an engineering standpoint) way to do it would be to secure additional right of way and build a second set of passenger rail tracks either right next to the freight lines, or elsewhere if that were more efficient. But no one who understands the political and legal system here in the States would bet a penny that that could ever be done.

> Why so much hatred for the rural folks on Slashdot? I don't claim to speak for everyone on Slashdot, but I will admit that that I have to fight my knee-jerk, negative attitudes toward rural people in general, and towards farmers in particular. Why? Because I grew up among them, and they made my childhood a living hell. For 50 years, I've listened to them condemn women who work, gays, people with degrees, liberals, and just about anybody who disagrees with them in any way. I've listened to them call in one breath for the elimination of any and all social programs which in any way benefit the poor, and in the next demand higher farm subsidies and tariffs (to be paid for, of course, by the people in whose lives they insist upon interfering. And living in the U.S., I have to deal with the out-sized influence they have upon the republican party. No, not every Tea Party lunatic is from a rural area. But I'd hazard a guess that the majority of rural voters share a great number of the same idiotic opinions as do the Tea Party-ers. In my experience (and I have quite a bit of it), rural people hate urban dwellers a great deal more than urban dwellers hate people from rural areas. These days, I actually hear urban dwellers romanticize farmers a great deal more than they deserve — a sure sign the urban-ite in question has never actually met a farmer. The day farmers stop telling other people how to live their lives, and stop dipping both hands into Uncle Sam's back pockets, I'll upgrade my opinion of them. But I don't expect to have to do so soon.

Yes, blurring Google Maps data would surely work. It would force prospective terrorists to actually buy physical maps at the huge cost of, what, $5, $6 a map? And to search for images of these places on the various photog and video sites - not to mention the sites associated with the organizations who reside at the buildings themselves. Or to go back to the on-site reconnaissance they always did before. And that was just too much walking.

I mean, we all know how easily terrorists are discouraged. Is it really worth going on a suicide mission if you're gonna have to spring for a couple of Michelin maps and some SD memory cards for the cameras, AND perform several extra web searches?!

Yep, this is the end of terrorism as we know it. They'll just get discouraged and go sit on the sofa and watch US TV while munching Doritos and swilling beer. Then, after their brains have rotted sufficiently, maybe they'll move to California and run for an Assembly seat... =8^O