4 ms·

His best analogy was people complaining that there flight from NYC to LA was "delayed an hour" and comparing it to the fact it often took years to cross the cou

His best analogy was people complaining that there flight from NYC to LA was "delayed an hour" and comparing it to the fact it often took years to cross the country ("people dieing and babies being born in the group you traveled with").

jamesbressi 17y ago
I was hoping he was going to deliver an Oregon Trail, something like: "New York to California in 5 hours?! That used to take 30 years, you die of dysentery, your oxen would get ill and you'd have to float your wagon across a river. Now, you watch a movie, take a dump and you're home."
- dgordon 17y ago
  Finally. An Oregon Trail reference that remembers that fording the river never, ever worked. Caulk the wagon and float was the way to go.
  - smokey_the_bear 17y ago
    it worked if you were starting really late in the season and the rivers were very low, but then the heat would get you later.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    The FaceBook group is called "I tried to ford the river and my fucking oxen died" for a reason.
  - Aron 17y ago
    Man.. can we not just appreciate the fact that we now have WAGONS that move your STUFF without you having to CARRY IT?!
pw0ncakes 17y ago
The awesomeness of air travel has faded into the background and now we see the shittiness of service, the high prices, and the cramped seats. Airplanes are still amazing technology, but they're wrong for most of their uses. High-speed rail makes more sense for mid-distance travel. At 300 mph, I'd even consider using it for New York to California-- much prettier, and not dependent on a fuel that will be very expensive in 10-20 years.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  There seems to be some movement on high speed rail in the states. It's funny, it's the one country on the planet that would really benefit from doing it and yet they're really late to the party.
  - eru 17y ago
    I don't know. High speed rail makes a lot of sense for dense countries. For countries with a lot of empty space in between, airplanes start to look relatively better. (Fast rail may still be the way to go for NY to California, who knows. It is definitely viable inside the sprawls, like the East Coast or the West Coast.)
- jzycrzy 17y ago
  From a worst-case-scenario perspective rail is great. Imagine: When all that expensive fuel goes away (bc of war, resource depletion, etc) and all we're left with is crappy old coal. If we have rail all over the country, we will still be able to plop some coal steam engine choo-choos on that rail and send food/water into major city centers so people don't starve.

jamesbressi 17y ago

I was hoping he was going to deliver an Oregon Trail, something like: "New York to California in 5 hours?! That used to take 30 years, you die of dysentery, your oxen would get ill and you'd have to float your wagon across a river. Now, you watch a movie, take a dump and you're home."

dgordon 17y ago
Finally. An Oregon Trail reference that remembers that fording the river never, ever worked. Caulk the wagon and float was the way to go.
- smokey_the_bear 17y ago
  it worked if you were starting really late in the season and the rivers were very low, but then the heat would get you later.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  The FaceBook group is called "I tried to ford the river and my fucking oxen died" for a reason.
- Aron 17y ago
  Man.. can we not just appreciate the fact that we now have WAGONS that move your STUFF without you having to CARRY IT?!

pw0ncakes 17y ago

The awesomeness of air travel has faded into the background and now we see the shittiness of service, the high prices, and the cramped seats. Airplanes are still amazing technology, but they're wrong for most of their uses. High-speed rail makes more sense for mid-distance travel. At 300 mph, I'd even consider using it for New York to California-- much prettier, and not dependent on a fuel that will be very expensive in 10-20 years.

jacquesm 17y ago
There seems to be some movement on high speed rail in the states. It's funny, it's the one country on the planet that would really benefit from doing it and yet they're really late to the party.
- eru 17y ago
  I don't know. High speed rail makes a lot of sense for dense countries. For countries with a lot of empty space in between, airplanes start to look relatively better. (Fast rail may still be the way to go for NY to California, who knows. It is definitely viable inside the sprawls, like the East Coast or the West Coast.)
jzycrzy 17y ago
From a worst-case-scenario perspective rail is great. Imagine: When all that expensive fuel goes away (bc of war, resource depletion, etc) and all we're left with is crappy old coal. If we have rail all over the country, we will still be able to plop some coal steam engine choo-choos on that rail and send food/water into major city centers so people don't starve.